SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " hilo " 242 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Your Personal Free Netflix and other Top 5 Tech you Absolutely Need in 2026
Last year I put together a list of products everyone absolutely needed to own in 2025. It included basic stuff, AirTags, GaN chargers, and even some slightly complex gadgets like NAS devices to help you cut the cord on cloud storage subscriptions. This year's list expands on the same philosophy from last year - make
No. 25 Alabama brings high-octane offense to LSU
Head coach Nate Oats and No. 25 Alabama are hoping for repeat performances from Labaron Philon Jr. and Aiden Sherrell when they face LSU on Saturday in Baton Rouge, La.
A Commonsense Critique of A Priori Metaphysics
On the relationship between science and philosophy.
Trump’s Obama and Bad Bunny posts crystallize his political philosophy
Maga is a recapitulation of the dark side of American history that cohered into nativist nationalism a century ago
Political Philology: J. R. R. Tolkien Against the Leftists
If I may be permitted to so step beyond my bounds and attempt to speak for what Tolkien’s advice might be, I believe his recommendation would be this: teach, read, and write poetry, for that is the first step toward viewing language as not merely a tool for communication, but a science, an art, a he
Future Broncos: Draft philosophy with a late first-round pick
The Denver Broncos are slated to pick 30th in the 2026 NFL Draft. What should their philosophy and approach be selecting so late in the first round?
Record-Breaking One-Off Bugatti Brouillard Could Become the Most Expensive Bugatti Ever
A one-off aimed at a historic record Bugatti’s latest one-off, the Brouillard, steps onto the hypercar stage with the quiet confidence of a record-breaker. The brand’s tradition of bespoke excellence meets a bold new aesthetic, positioning this unique commission to potentially become the marque’s most expensive creation. Built on the proven underpinnings of the Chiron/Mistral architecture, yet transformed by distinctive craft, the Brouillard is both homage and innovation. A name born from equestrian legend More than a century ago, a striking white horse captivated Ettore Bugatti in Molsheim. That equine myth now informs the car’s name and its sensory identity. The result is an automotive portrait of athletic grace—surfaces that read like muscle, curves that suggest motion, and details that quietly speak of discipline and heritage. Embroidered horse motifs on door panels and seat backs echo the story, while a miniature glass sculpture of the steed crowns the shifter. Sculptural design with purpose The Brouillard’s silhouette favors sinuous surfaces over hard creases, allowing light to glide over its form like a tendon under skin. Aerodynamics inform elegance: an integrated ducktail replaces a deployable wing, cleansing the airflow and boosting stability at speed. Its stance is athletic, its volumes taut, and its visual language unmistakably Bugatti. “Sculptural, organic forms—like a tendon beneath the skin—hide immense power behind noble simplicity,” said design chief Frank Heyl, capturing the car’s philosophy in a single stroke. Craft elevated to an art The cabin embraces craftsmanship at an uncommon level. Custom-woven textiles from Paris introduce a discreet tartan pattern, while green-tinted carbon fiber nods to the exterior’s hue. A glazed roof creates a cathedral atmosphere, bathing the cockpit in natural light. A central spine appears to flow from exterior to interior, emphasizing continuity and structure. Highlights include: Custom textiles with subtle tartan motifs Green-tinted carbon fiber matched to the exterior finish A “cathedral” glass roof that elevates cabin ambience A sculptural centerline linking outside to inside Bespoke embroidery and glass equine detail W16 power at its absolute apex Under the sculpted skin, the final evolution of Bugatti’s 8.0‑liter, quad‑turbo W16 delivers a thunderous 1,600 hp at 7,050 rpm and 1,600 Nm of torque. This represents the pinnacle of nearly two decades of Bugatti engineering, honed to an ultimate state. The lightweight monocoque blends carbon fiber with aluminum, holding mass to around 1,900 kg for poise and control. Experts suggest the Brouillard could surpass the 282 mph (454 km/h) achieved by the Mistral, aided by more aerodynamic bodywork and the fixed ducktail. Whether or not it sets a new benchmark, its intent is clear: relentless speed paired with refinement. Exclusivity with an exacting timeline The commissioning process is intensive, with roughly 18 months of development leading to a 2027 delivery. Bugatti’s program limits itself to no more than two creations per year, ensuring focus and rarity. Each example leaves the atelier as a singular vision, shaped to the client’s collection and the brand’s ethos. An unveiling is planned for Monterey Car Week 2025, placing the Brouillard amid the world’s most discerning enthusiasts. Its patron is a European collector deeply invested in the Bugatti universe, from historic and modern cars to Carlo Bugatti furniture and Rembrandt Bugatti bronzes. A valuation poised to make history While Bugatti has not disclosed an official price, informed estimates place the Brouillard between €10 million and €30 million. Context matters: a series Mistral begins near €5 million, while the Brouillard adds profound personalization, sculptural changes, and a pace of production that keeps scarcity front and center. In an arena where uniqueness drives value, the path to a brand record is unmistakably open. What it signals for the marque The Brouillard crystallizes Bugatti’s dual identity: traditional savoir‑faire intertwined with boundary-pushing performance. It exhibits a narrative soul—the white horse of Molsheim—woven into modern materials and world-class aerodynamics. As a rolling statement, it reaffirms that the Bugatti idea is larger than speed alone; it is about story, craft, and the courage to pursue an ideal to its logical limit.
Experts Warn: The Dangerous Blur Between Science and Wellness in Mental Health Bestsellers
A marketplace where labels blur In many bookstores, titles rooted in clinical science sit inches from glossy self-help guides promising instant serenity. That proximity can make rigorous research look interchangeable with lifestyle advice, especially when everything shares the same bright displays. Readers encounter a single aisle labeled “psychology,” even when the content ranges from peer-reviewed evidence to spiritual rituals. The result is a subtle but pervasive blur, turning a complex health landscape into a grab-bag of mixed claims. Why the shelves can mislead Retail categories are built for convenience, not for methodological clarity or clinical accuracy. When “development personal” or “wellness” becomes the default bin, evidence-based psychology competes with coaching manifestos and mystical manuals. The visual language of covers—calming color palettes, confident subtitles, glowing endorsements—flattens the distinction between randomized trials and anecdotal wisdom. In that aesthetic harmony, a guide on cognitive behavioral therapy may appear no more “serious” than a book on moon manifestation. The stakes for readers and patients Confusion carries real risks, including delayed care when people self-treat serious symptoms with untested routines. Vulnerable readers—facing depression, trauma, or anxiety—may be swayed by charismatic voices over careful data. Some messages frame recovery as pure willpower, which can amplify shame when symptoms persist despite effort. Others overpromise universal solutions, ignoring cultural context, diagnostic nuance, and comorbidity. “Shelving is not neutral; it shapes beliefs, expectations, and choices.” What professionals and retailers are asking Clinicians and public-health experts argue for clear, readable signage that separates science-based mental health from broader wellness. Books by licensed psychiatrists or psychologists that cite peer-reviewed studies could be grouped under “Evidence-Based Mental Health.” Adjacent space might host reflective memoirs, coaching workbooks, or contemplative philosophy—valuable in their way, but clearly labeled as non-clinical guidance. Booksellers emphasize their dual role as cultural curators and commercial actors, noting they respond to demand while striving for quality standards. How clarity could look and feel The goal is not to police ideas, but to help readers navigate with confidence. Transparent categorization respects reader autonomy while lifting the signal of credible practice. Clear tags—such as “scientific references,” “clinical overview,” or “personal narrative”—can work like map legends, turning a maze into a route. And when a book blends modes, hybrid labels can acknowledge both insight and limitation. A practical checklist for choosing wisely Check the author’s credentials: clinical license, academic affiliation, or relevant training. Scan the references: citations to peer-reviewed journals or reputable guidelines. Look for scope limits: clear statements about who the book is and isn’t for, and when to seek care. Seek methods, not miracles: approaches tested across diverse groups, with measurable outcomes. Watch the language: be wary of absolute claims, stigmatizing tones, or one-size-fits-all promises. Cross-verify with trusted bodies: national psychology associations or public-health agencies. The publisher’s responsibility Publishers can raise the bar by standardizing disclosure on methods, sample sizes, and limitations. Editorial policies could require conflict-of-interest statements, transparent citations, and plain-language summaries of evidence. Marketing should avoid medicalized framing for books that lack clinical validation, even when sales incentives press for bold claims. When a manuscript mixes reflection with research, honest jacket copy can prevent false equivalence. Coexisting without confusion Wellness writing can offer genuine comfort, perspective, and daily habits that support well-being. Scientific texts can provide structured tools, validated therapies, and realistic expectations for progress. The aim is to let these strands coexist, while giving readers the navigational cues to tell them apart. With clearer shelves, informed labels, and modest design tweaks, we can protect reader trust—and keep the aisle both inviting and intelligent.
Chris Shula not the issue with the Rams defense
The Rams defense struggled late, but Chris Shula isn’t the problem. Here’s why Sean McVay’s philosophy matters more.
How to live a meaningful life, according to science
The meaning of life has puzzled philosophers for millennia, but new research suggests it could be as simple as lending a helping hand
Science Fields and Methodology Came from a Christian Worldview
Is Christianity incompatible with real science? The development and history of science answer a resounding “no.”
James Webb’s Business Philosophy and Franchise Leadership at Scenthound: Educating and Empowering Pet Owners Nationwide
In his role as a franchisee of Scenthound, Webb has used his business experience to not only expand the footprint of a company focused on canine health and wellness but also to amplify the brand’s educational mission for pet owners.
Astronaut Ellison Onizuka Science Day Returns To Hilo
HILO, Hawaiʻi – On the 40th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy, the life and legacy of Hawaiʻi’s first NASA astronaut was celebrated.
Why it Matters: Ohio hopes the Science of Reading boosts student literacy rates
The Science of Reading isn’t a single program or philosophy. It’s based on decades of scientific research that explains how children develop reading and writing skills, and why some kids struggle.
You Must Leave! Binghamton Plaza Shop Owners Have Been Warned
The husband and wife who've operated Leather Corner Shoe Repair in Binghamton for nearly 54 years have been officially advised to leave the building.
AI cannot automate science: A philosopher explains the uniquely human aspects of doing research
Consistent with the general trend of incorporating artificial intelligence into nearly every field, researchers and politicians are increasingly using AI models trained on scientific data to infer answers ...
AI cannot automate science – a philosopher explains the uniquely human aspects of doing research
While AI can streamline certain parts of the scientific process, a philosopher argues that it cannot replace human expertise and collaboration.
What's the Point of Philosophy?
Does science really have nothing to say about the nature of consciousness?
Is Consciousness Everywhere?
On the pseudophilosophy of panpsychism and its parallel to creationism
Washington Business Journals Names Brian Ferdinand as a 2026 Projected Breakout Trader
Washington, DC, Jan. 12, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Washington Business Journals has named Brian Ferdinand as one of its 2026 Projected Breakout Traders, recognizing his disciplined approach to markets, long-term vision, and evolving leadership in modern trading. The designation reflects Ferdinand’s professional journey across finance, real estate, and hospitality, as well as his recent return to markets with a refined philosophy centered on precision, clarity, and durability. Rather than chasing
Levy Senior Center to host Philosophy of Science on Jan. 8
Each month, graduate students from Northwestern University visit the Levy Senior Center to discuss different science topics. This month, they will explore
4 leadership lessons from Barry Diller: They don't teach this in business school
IAC/Expedia Chairman & Senior Executive Barry Diller's leadership philosophy includes faking it until you earn it and embracing creative conflict.
Philosophy to the Rescue of Science
The pessimistic meta-induction—the argument that since past scientific theories have been shown to be false, we should expect that today’s will turn out false, too—makes the New York Times. . Elay Shech, professor of philosophy at Auburn University, takes up the topic in the context of current political disputes about science and our government’s seemingly increasing disregard of expertise: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services, made a version of this argument in August when defending his decision to halt hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA vaccine development despite the objections of vaccine scientists. He said that “science is always evolving” and the experts could not always be trusted. Shech accepts that “many widely accepted [scientific] theories have been discarded” but that the question, “why should we trust the ones we have now?” is misleading. Why? It implies that the only possible attitudes toward science are naïve faith and wholesale pessimism. It assumes that science is a single global entity that rises or falls all at once, when in reality, science is an array of local domains of inquiry, each with its own standards of evidence and degrees of reliability. In place of skepticism, Shech recommends “disciplined trust.” The first step in the direction of disciplined trust is recognizing that “there is no single scientific method used in all of science.” Shech writes: Newton’s deduction from observed phenomena is very different from Darwin’s inference to the best explanation, which in turn differs radically from Einstein’s thought experiments with light beams, trains and elevators. What people call “the scientific method” is really many distinct ways of investigating the world—different strategies for representing, experimenting and classifying. Since different areas of science employ different methods and rely on different kinds of evidence, to make a case for skepticism “you need to look at the evidence and methods in a specific area of inquiry.” And that case will not be “a sweeping claim about all of science” but rather about that particular area of inquiry with, for example, what might turn out to be “well-understood methodological problems.” Shech’s piece is “Science Keeps Changing, So Why Should We Trust It?” (NYT gift link). Discussion welcome (readers are advised to keep in..
Theo Johnson's appearance at Knicks game raised questions after Giants TE was ruled out with an illness
Year in review: Philomath's top 10 sports stories of 2025
From girls track's historic fourth straight state title to two D1 football commits, Philomath High's top 10 sports stories of 2025 celebrate achievement and resilience.
ENTERTAINMENT: Clinton Center 2026 lineup includes Cornel West
Cornel West, democratic socialist philosopher in the progressive Christian tradition, according to a news release, and Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic and a conservative legal scholar, will jointly present a Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture.
What if AI becomes conscious and we never know
A philosopher at the University of Cambridge says there’s no reliable way to know whether AI is conscious—and that may remain true for the foreseeable future. According to Dr. Tom McClelland, consciousness alone isn’t the ethical tipping point anyway; sentience, the capacity to feel good or bad, is what truly matters. He argues that claims of conscious AI are often more marketing than science, and that believing in machine minds too easily could cause real harm. The safest stance for now, he says, is honest uncertainty.
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
Book examines life purpose, from ancient wisdom to emerging science
In a new book, “Purpose in Life as Ancient but Nascent,” psychology professor Anthony Burrow and colleagues explore purpose through the lens of psychology, philosophy and human development to help readers cultivate a sense of purpose.
Vertex Forward: Our animated video series
Watch the animated video series “Vertex Forward” to see the Vertex Pharmaceuticals philosophy and strategy explained.
A new era for sports communication at UNC Hussman | UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media
As director of UNC Hussman’s Sports Communication Focus Program, Distinguished Associate Professor of Sports Communication Livis Freeman is building on the work of the school’s legendary Distinguished Professor for Sports Communication John Sweeney. Sweeney, who retired last year, developed one of the most respected sports communication programs in the country. Freeman, now in his 12th year at the school, is launching an ambitious expansion of the program that is transforming how UNC prepares students for careers in sports media. The most visible change came this fall with a reimagining of “MEJO 377: Sports Communication.” Previously offered as two sections with 30 students each, the course expanded to 96 students and welcomed former UNC basketball star and NBA veteran Tyler Hansbrough as the co-instructor with Freeman, bringing real world professional experience directly into the classroom every week. The course has been a huge success. Students have participated in recording a podcast with Hansbrough and learned from an impressive lineup of guest speakers. Steve Kirschner, UNC’s senior associate director of athletics for communications, was the first in the course’s guest speaker series, followed by UNC Hussman alumni including Kaitlyn Schmidt ’23 from Bleacher Report, Deaton Bell ’90 from Turner Sports and Becca Royer ’19 from the Philadelphia 76ers. Travis Tygart, CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, also shared his insights with the class. The highlight of the semester came when Roy Williams, who coached Hansbrough and the Tar Heels to a national championship in 2009, visited the classroom. Former UNC men’s basketball players Luke Maye and Marcus Ginyard showed up to support their former coach and Hansbrough, creating an unforgettable experience as Williams entertained students with stories and insights that captivated the room. Student demand has been overwhelming. The course reached capacity within two days of registration opening, with more than 40 students on the waitlist. “Students want to learn from people who have actually lived these experiences,” Freeman said. “Tyler shares insights into media relations, broadcast production and athlete communications that you simply can’t get from a textbook.” The model proved so successful that the school secured funding to continue it for the next five years, with a different former professional athlete co-teaching each fall. The school’s curriculum committee approved a proposal to expand the course to 150 to 200 students starting in fall 2026. This change will make it an introductory course accessible to students from across the University, transforming it into a showcase course for the entire campus. The course redesign represents just one piece of a broader sports communication program overhaul. This fall, the curriculum committee approved “MEJO 390: Sports Play by Play,” the first course of its kind at UNC. Limited to 10 advanced students, the course will be taught by Matt Krause, the current voice of UNC women’s basketball and an ACC Network broadcaster. Students will call actual games across multiple sports including women’s softball, soccer, volleyball, field hockey and lacrosse, as well as men’s soccer and lacrosse. They will also shadow broadcasts of men’s and women’s basketball games. “The sports broadcasting industry is exploding with streaming platforms and conference networks creating unprecedented demand,” Freeman said. The course emerged directly from student advocacy, led by Anna Laible ’26 and others who pushed for hands-on broadcasting experience. Professional equipment has been acquired, partnerships with UNC Athletics are in place and a soft launch began this semester with three experienced students calling games to test the system. The program’s growth extends into other specialized areas as well. Last spring, Stembler Professor Charlie Tuggle launched a new sports event management and hospitality course in partnership with On Location, a company that manages major sporting event experiences. The course provided students with opportunities to travel to the Super Bowl and NFL Draft, and Tuggle plans to take a group to the 2026 Milan Olympics this spring. Looking ahead to spring 2026, Associate Professor Ryan Thornburg will debut a sports data visualization course, adding another dimension to the program’s skill-building offerings. The curriculum expansion reflects the increasingly diverse career paths available in sports media, from traditional journalism and broadcasting to digital analytics and strategic communication. The program is also diving into one of college athletics’ most transformative developments: Name, Image and Likeness rights. Freeman’s “MEJO 466: Sports Marketing” class collaborated last spring with Associate Professor Gary Kayye’s “MEJO 371: Advertising Creative” class on a project with UNC’s Carolina NIL group to help rebrand their organization. That same semester, Kayye’s class envisioned Chapel Thrill, UNC football’s new pregame concert and entertainment experience. And Shaun Anderson, the school’s Knight Chair in Sports, Race and Media, continues to explore the broader implications of NIL through his research and teaching. These NIL-focused initiatives give students direct exposure to the business side of college athletics at a moment when the landscape is rapidly evolving. “Our students aren’t just learning about these changes,” Freeman said. “They’re actively helping shape how schools and athletes navigate them.” The transformation of UNC Hussman’s sports communication program reflects a broader philosophy about how to prepare students for careers in a rapidly changing industry. By bringing in professional practitioners like Hansbrough and Krause, partnering with industry leaders like On Location and ACC Network, and engaging with current issues like NIL, the program ensures students graduate with both theoretical knowledge and practical experience. For alumni who remember the foundations John Sweeney built, the expansion represents an evolution rather than a departure. The program still emphasizes strong reporting, strategic communication, ethical communication and critical thinking. But now it also offers students the chance to call live games, work on real NIL campaigns and learn directly from former professional athletes. “We’re not just teaching students about sports media,” Freeman said. “We’re giving them the tools, experiences and connections to actually build careers in it.” With new courses launching, professional partnerships deepening and enrollment expanding, UNC Hussman’s sports communication program is positioning itself as a national leader in preparing the next generation of sports media professionals. For current students, the message is clear: if you’re interested in sports communication, there’s never been a better time to be at UNC Hussman. And for the hundreds of students trying to get off waitlists and into these new courses, the school is working to create more opportunities. The program John Sweeney built is growing in ways that honor his legacy while meeting the demands of a new era in sports media.
The FBI is investigating a startup founder accused of using VC money to pay for her house and a Caribbean wedding.
Shiloh Luckey faces SEC charges for using VC funds to pay for her home, Super Bowl tickets, trips to Aspen, and a wedding. The FBI is also investigating.
Anthropic's resident philosopher shares her tips to create the best AI prompts
Amanda Askell, a member of Anthropic's technical team and a trained philosopher, shared some pro-tips for getting the most of AI chatbots.
4 Books On Turning Human Connection Into Business Growth
As automation gathers pace, a people-first philosophy is more important than ever for thriving businesses.
Think the viral meme of that legislator is funny?
Political philosopher says rampant schadenfreude among electorate poses risk to democracy.
Genesis Mission: why Trump’s plan to put AIs in charge of science could backfire
AI enthusiasts are right that projects like AlphaFold are a huge leap forward, but the philosophy of science shows why excluding humans undermines it.
After 40 years of adventure games, Ron Gilbert pivots to outrunning Death
Interview: Storied designer talks lost RPG, a 3D Monkey Island, “Eat the Rich” philosophy.
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Time may be a psychological projection, philosopher argues
Is time real, or an illusion? The best answer may be neither: Both physics and philosophy suggest that time is a projection of the mind onto a timeless reality.
ON THE OBJECTIVITY OF SCIENCE: KARL POPPER and THOMAS KUHN. Lecture 5 of Postmodern Philosophy [Peterson Academy course]
Lecture Five: Science and technology have accomplished wonders since the Enlightenment. But, as Karl Popper asks, how do we “distinguish between science and pseudo–science“? Thomas Kuhn suggests that scientists are less-than-objective and more “like the typical character of Orwell’s 1984.” Themes: Logical Positivism and Analytic philosophy’s aspirations and travails. Scientific method. Science and pseudo-science. Falsifiability. […]