SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Phil " 3,619 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Dear Apple Stock Fans, Mark Your Calendars for October 13
Apple is preparing a notable smart-home expansion for Oct. 13, adding a fresh dimension to its product ecosystem.
Eagles Star Given Strong Prediction Entering Rams Week 4 Game
One of the stars of the Philadelphia Eagles has been given a strong prediction entering the team's game against the Los Angeles Rams.
Phillies legend Brad Lidge says obvious problem Philadelphia now faces
Do the Phillies have an obvious fix?
Phil Castellini Sends Message About Reds' Future After Rough Season
The Reds' new control person spoke for the first time since taking over, and he had firm answers about the front office and the team's ownership.
Ex-Philadelphia Eagles Star Named NFL’s Top Trade Candidate
Ex-Philadelphia Eagles star and Super Bowl champion named NFL's top trade candidate by ESPN. The post Ex-Philadelphia Eagles Star Named NFL’s Top Trade Candidate appeared first on HEAVY.
Rams’ plan for Puka Nacua revealed ahead of Eagles game
Puka Nacua will return for Los Angeles Rams vs. Philadelphia Eagles, but Los Angeles may limit his workload.
Philosophy, Theology, and an Inference to Design
My dissertation on the logic of conditionals came to seems like the rock of Sisyphus.
Beloved Philadelphia Science Museum Closes After 198 Years
Generations of Philadelphia families walked through the Academy of Natural Sciences to see dinosaurs, dioramas, and specimens collected from around the world. After nearly 200 years, those museum door...
Penn State's loss to Northwestern is season-altering
Penn State's loss to Northwestern ultimately puts Penn State in a steep uphill climb with two months to go in the football season.
Braves Face Dodgers Juggernaut After Wild-Card Revenge
The Braves survived the Phillies but now must topple a historic Dodgers trio. Can Grant Holmes and Chris Sale stop the run for a third title?
Florida Blue Foundation now accepting grant applications for maternal health initiatives
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The Florida Blue Foundation, the philanthropic affiliate of Florida Blue and part of the GuideWell portfolio of companies, now is accepting grant applications from nonprofits focused on improving maternal health outcomes in Florida. The foundation seeks to fund Florida-based nonprofits with innovative and actionable solutions designed to improve maternal […]
Just short of its 200th birthday, a landmark natural history museum shuts down
Beloved for its dinosaurs, Philadelphia's storied Academy of Natural Sciences closed down this week, amid an intense fight by local residents, politicians and scientists to save it.
Artists remember veteran concert producer Susan Lim and her decades in entertainment
Photo from Facebook/@susan.o.lim Artists and colleagues are remembering veteran concert producer Susan Lim for a career that spanned Philippine productions and overseas tours for Filipino performers. Lim died Sept. 14. Pops Fernandez, Martin Nievera and Roderick Paulate were among those who later shared public tributes, recalling both her work in entertainment and their longtime friendships with her. Lim had been active in…
Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker on first 1,000 days, politics and policies
Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker joined an episode of Battleground Politics to talk about what her administration has accomplished and what's ahead.
Florida Receives Good News, Bad News Ahead of Missouri Game
Injuries sideline star receiver Vernell Brown III, but a depleted Missouri defense offers a lifeline for Aaron Philo's Florida Gators.
Eagles Rule Out DeVonta Smith, Zack Baun for Game vs. Rams
Philadelphia will be down a couple of key contributors for an important game.
State House candidates talk class size, vouchers, mental health in education forum
Candidates for three Tennessee House seats addressed voters at a candidate forum hosted by Clarksville Voices for Education this week.
Philly Mayor Cherelle Parker on 1,000 days in office and what comes next
Mayor Cherelle Parker discussed her administration’s work in Kensington, Philadelphia’s political landscape and the competition she’ll face in 2027.
Shaping the Future of Global Health: 'Go Healthy with Taiwan 2026' Unveils Top 20 Innovators from 62 Nations
TAIPEI, Taiwan, October 02, 2026--The "Go Healthy with Taiwan 2026" global proposal campaign has selected 20 semifinalists from 832 proposals across 62 countries, with two more rounds of selection still to come. The 20 shortlisted teams hail from 16 countries worldwide, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, India, Israel, Japan, Malawi, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Spain, Tunisia, Ukraine, and U.S.A., fully demonstrating strong international diversity and innovative energy.
3 Biggest Questions Facing Phillies Entering Crucial Offseason
Here are the three biggest questions facing the Philadelphia Phillies entering a critical offseason.
‘Abbott Elementary’ teases sixth season changes
PHILADELPHIA — The new season of "Abbott Elementary" is nearly back in session. And from the looks of it, there are some changes coming. In the Season 6 trailer that
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time
This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Aaron Donald officially OUT for Eagles-Rams in Week 4
Philadelphia’s offense got some good news as they prepare for Sunday’s game against the Rams.
Eagles Given Intriguing Prediction For Trade Deadline This Season
The Philadelphia Eagles were given an interesting prediction for the upcoming trade deadline.
11 Philadelphia business owners accused of defrauding WIC program of nearly $1M
Eleven Philadelphia business owners were charged in connection with a fraud scheme involving the WIC program, according to the attorney general.
Vance embodies Nixon’s populist, outsider qualities
There have been countless comparisons between the late President Richard Nixon and President Donald Trump, due to their cunning, guile, and Machiavellian approaches to politics. Nixon himself, in a 1987 letter to Trump, a then-celebrity businessman, saw a political future for the younger man in response to a Phil Donahue Show television appearance. But there’s […]
Eagles opposing player to stop, Week 4 edition
Philadelphia must get after the Rams’ quarterback.
How ‘Purposeful Growth’ Makes The Case For Business’ Most Underused Advantage
Purpose didn't fail, business misunderstood it. In their new book Purposeful Growth, Helen Trickey and Philipp Reker show how leaders turn meaning into commercial momentum.
Nick Nurse Reveals LeBron James' Role in 76ers' Offense
Nick Nurse feels LeBron James is going to be huge for the team offensively. But, his impact will matter more as the season goes on.
Coffins receive 2026 United Way Tocqueville Society Award
Don and Mary Coffin have received the United Way of Central Iowa’s 2026 Tocqueville Society Award, recognizing individuals whose sustained leadership, philanthropic commitment and service have created lasting impact across Central Iowa. For more than 20 years, the Coffins have been longtime advocates of United Way supporting the organization through campaign leadership, volunteer service, board…
Phillies make Don Mattingly decision immediately after loss to Braves
Phillies lose to the Braves and immediately make decision on Mattingly.
How Phillies' finish-line stumble set up their latest October demise
Don Mattingly always preached “better baseball,” but the Phillies couldn’t close out September — and carried the consequences into October.
'A beacon to the world,' faculty and students mourn Academy of Natural Sciences' closure
The Academy of Natural Sciences has officially closed, ending a chapter in both Drexel University's and Philadelphia's history.
Business: Pioneer Connect rolls out lower internet pricing across all service tiers
Pioneer Connect announced permanent internet price cuts, dropping its gigabit fiber package to $84.95 a month and adding a no-contract "Price for Life" guarantee.
Eagles’ 10-Year NFL Veteran Makes Change Before Rams Game
Kicking off a new week, the Philadelphia Eagles elevated one of their practice squad players to join the active roster. The safety Kenny Moore is getting more than just a role change with the Eagles ahead of Week 4 against the Los Angeles Rams. According to NBC Sports Philadelphia’s Dave Zangaro, Moore is changing his […] The post Eagles’ 10-Year NFL Veteran Makes Change Before Rams Game appeared first on HEAVY.
Eagles' Jalen Hurts Seemingly Places Blame on New Offensive System
Hurts has a fair point, but the team needs to be better.
What's the 411?
We remember multimedia personality Angela Stibling. She worked for WHUR Radio in Washington D.C., and was a personality on BET. Her velvet voice and warm presence made her standout in
$10M gift helps launch new sports, entertainment, enterprise program
There was just enough room on the oversized check for all the zeroes. Seven of them, marking one of the larger philanthropic commitments in N.C. Wesleyan University's history.
Eagles-Rams matchups to watch in Week 4
Here are some key matchups to watch when the Eagles host the Rams in Week 4 on Sunday afternoon.
What went wrong at Philly’s Academy of Natural Sciences? Former museum staffers point to years of missteps
“There was a big push to not be known as the dinosaur museum,” said one laid-off worker. That shift came with a cost, ex-staffers say.
Commentary: Can Letterboxd stay Letterboxd under studio ownership?
Letterboxd, once a niche social network for cinephiles to review, recommend and discover films, is now the subject of a potential nine-figure acquisition. As reported by the New York Times
Eagles Star Assigns Blame For Busted Play vs Bears
Outside of Quinyon Mitchell, the Philadelphia Eagles’ secondary had a rough night against the Chicago Bears in Week 3. Despite facing a third-string quarterback in Case Keenum, the Eagles didn’t have any answers to the Bears’ passing game. The result? Giving up 247 yards and two touchdowns through the air. The Bears scored 27 points […] The post Eagles Star Assigns Blame For Busted Play vs Bears appeared first on HEAVY.
Allianz names new CEOs at Allianz Partners and Allianz Direct
Philipp Kroetz moves from Direct to lead Partners, with Partners COO Laurent Floquet taking over Direct, as Tomas Kunzmann heads to the Allianz SE board
Phillies' season ends with the pain of another early postseason knockout
Aaron Nola and Zack Wheeler gave up a combined five runs on two homers. Atlanta advances to the Division Series. The Phillies go home.
Phillies' 2026 Season Ends in Rough Game 3 Against Braves
The Philadelphia Phillies have been eliminated from the playoffs after losing Game 3 to the Atlanta Braves.
Eagles Delivered Brutal DeVonta Smith Update Before Rams Game
Going into a tough matchup against the Los Angeles Rams this weekend, the Philadelphia Eagles have a loaded injury report. The wide receiver DeVonta Smith is a headliner. For the second straight week, Smith is dealing with a hamstring injury. On Wednesday, the Eagles had a walkthrough, but estimated that Smith would not practice at […] The post Eagles Delivered Brutal DeVonta Smith Update Before Rams Game appeared first on HEAVY.
Flyers suffer overtime loss to Devils, drop first two games of season
The Flyers couldn’t bounce back from their dreadful season opener as they fell to the Devils, 3-2, in OT.
LeBron James Makes Strong Statement About 76ers' Expectations
LeBron James is ready to start the season, and knows they have the talent to be one of the best in the league.
Full Dodgers NLDS schedule & start times
LOS ANGELES — The full schedule for the Division Series round was announced by Major League Baseball on Thursday, giving us the start times for potentially all five games of the Dodgers’ first postseason round. The Dodgers will play the winner of Thursday night’s Braves-Phillies wild card battle in Atlanta, with their NLDS opening up […]
Jalen Hurts Illegal Hit Defended by Bears Teammate
The illegal hit on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts by D'Marco Jackson has been defended by his teammate Jahdae Walker. The post Jalen Hurts Illegal Hit Defended by Bears Teammate appeared first on HEAVY.
Phillies vs. Braves live updates, starting pitchers, where to watch: Aaron Nola, Ray Kerr to start Game 3 of wild-card series
Multi-sport standouts headline Philo Athletic Hall of Fame class
The latest Philo Hall of Fame class features some of the best multi-sport athletes in school history.
Pat McAfee goes on wild tirade after exchange with Jason Kelce on ‘MNF’: ‘I hope you all rot’
Pat McAfee aggressively shouted down fans sticking up for former Philadelphia Eagles center Jason Kelce after McAfee playfully scolded him for using the pronoun ‘we’ when discussing the team.
Goodwill Arkansas to receive $850,000 from The BlackRock Foundation
Little Rock-based nonprofit Goodwill Arkansas will receive an $850,000 grant from an initiative of The BlackRock Foundation, the philanthropic arm of asset management firm BlackRock, to help workers pursue careers...
Arkansas, Kentucky each awarded $10M grants for maternal health efforts
A nonprofit founded by philanthropist Olivia Walton announced Thursday it is awarding $10 million grants to Arkansas and Kentucky to improve maternal health in rural communities.
Pennsylvania health workers bring vaccines to communities amid measles outbreak
Pennsylvania is seeing its worst measles outbreak since 1991 as health workers bring MMR vaccines to community clinics.
The Politics of the Planetary
The French philosopher Guy Debord and Danish painter Asger Jorn built their book Mémoires (1959) out of a collage of purloined material. Newspaper clippings, magazine advertisements, cartoons, cutups of maps…
Neil Pierre: Philadelphia Union's towering defender reaches USMNT
By Jonathan SigalNeil Pierre goes bowling with his Philadelphia Union brothersPhiladelphia Union center back Neil Pierre has gone from prospect to star for club and country, emerging as one of Major L...
New 76ers Wing Dean Wade Takes Parting Shot at Cavaliers
After swapping Cleveland for a star-studded Philadelphia roster, Dean Wade's compliment for his new team could come as a shot to Cavaliers after near title run this past season.
Aaron Nola, The Man for The Moment
Alternatingly brilliant and baffling, Aaron Nola is the 2026 Phillies personified.
Penguins Goalie Pulls Off Rare NHL Feat in Season Opener
The Pittsburgh Penguins looked unstoppable in Wednesday night’s 7-0 win. Goalie Arturs Silovs was a big part of that. The last time the two teams met, the Philadelphia Flyers sent the Penguins packing and back home for the summer. Pittsburgh clearly didn’t forget, putting on an incredible display of offense from its scorers and goaltending […] The post Penguins Goalie Pulls Off Rare NHL Feat in Season Opener appeared first on HEAVY.
Phillies Talk: Phillies force decisive Game 3 after CRAZY win in Game 2
Coming off a WILD win in Game 2 against the Braves, Sean Kane and Spencer McKercher break down the win and look ahead to a decisive Game 3.
Greater Philadelphia - Regional Life Sciences Roundup - October 1, 2026
Each week, our Regional Roundup delivers the most important and timely life sciences news from around the region. From groundbreaking research to fundraising…
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: “A Glorious Enterprise” comes to a sad end
by Greg Mayer The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the oldest natural history museum in the United States, is closing. Drexel University, with which the Academy became affiliated in 201…
In Hindsight, the Packers Should Have Never Traded Dontayvion Wicks
Jayden Reed’s devastating season-ending injury exposes a critical depth chart void, leaving the Green Bay Packers to rue an offseason trade that sent a potential rising star to Philadelphia.
Dodgers notes: Offense, Freddie Freeman, Miguel Rojas
As the Los Angeles Dodgers await the outcome of the final game between the Philadelphia Philles and Atlanta Braves to see who they will face in the NLDS, the team is busy working on keeping their bats and arms fresh and ready for the road to a three-peat that lies ahead. As Bill Plunkett of […]
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
Nestlé's CEO says these 3 qualities will get you promoted
As Philipp Navratil has moved up the Nestlé career ladder, he said he's noticed traits that consistently set apart workers who earn promotions.
Former Philadelphia Eagles rookie, Pa. native signs with NFC contender
Former Eagles defensive tackle and West Chester standout David Blay has signed with the Green Bay Packers' practice squad.
Casio’s Crystal G-Shock Is the Most Expensive Ever Made
Meet the full-blue sapphire MRG-D5000, a crazy G-Shock that costs more than a Patek Philippe or Porsche Macan.
Flyers Postgame Thoughts: Breaking Down the Uninspiring Opening Night Loss
Less than ideal is the sugar-coated way to describe the Philadelphia Flyers’ opening night loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins on […]
DeVonta Smith Injury Threatens Eagles Offense
The Eagles injury report is a nightmare. With DeVonta Smith, Dallas Goedert, and Zack Baun sidelined, Philly's Week 4 matchup against the Rams looks grim.
University launches new Philosophy, Politics and Economics concentration
With 18 course requirements, the new concentration is set to be Brown’s most intensive A.B. concentration.
Riley’s Blast Proves Phillies’ Game 1 Loss Was No Surprise
Austin Riley's three-run homer off Jhoan Duran sealed a 5-3 loss. The Phillies' bullpen issues made this heartbreaker inevitable, not shocking.
Jaylen Brown Has Perfect Response to 76ers' 'Alpha' Question
Jaylen Brown is going to be a real leader for the 76ers. He explains how his mindset is all about winning.
Montgomery County DA charges 46 businesses with selling illegal THC products
Dozens of smoke shops, corner stores and gas stations ignored repeated warnings, District Attorney Kevin Steele said Thursday.
Bryce Harper’s Heroics Erase Braves’ Pitching Dominance
Bryce Harper hit a huge home run to save the Phillies' season, but the Braves' bullpen blew a lead in an intense 10-inning battle in Atlanta.
Philadelphia Eagles Get Huge Injury News Before Rams Game
Philadelphia Eagles get huge injury news ahead of Week 4 against Los Angeles Rams. The post Philadelphia Eagles Get Huge Injury News Before Rams Game appeared first on HEAVY.
Microsoft Science President Peter Lee to Step Down
Microsoft veteran Peter Lee, who for years led the company’s internal research unit, will leave the company, he announced Wednesday. Lee is the latest in a string of senior executive departures from Microsoft announced this year. So far this year, Office and Windows boss Rajesh Jha, Xbox CEO Phil Spencer, chief communications officer Frank Shaw and security chief Charlie Bell have announced
Nick Nurse Reveals 76ers' Biggest Priority at Training Camp
Nick Nurse is ready to get the ball rolling with his new team. He wants to lay the foundation right from the start.
PAHO and MSD for Mothers sign agreement to reduce preventable maternal deaths in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic
Two-year initiative will support countries to reduce maternal mortality, prevent unintended repeat adolescent pregnancies, and strengthen efforts to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV, syphilis and other infectionsWashington, D.C., 30 September 2026 (PAHO) — The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and MSD for Mothers have signed an agreement to help reduce preventable maternal deaths in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic by strengthening adolescent health and improving maternal health services.
Phil Keaggy talks Jesus Music roots, Guns N’ Roses riff, 'Reagan' director's cut: ‘Our main mission’ was the Gospel
Legendary Christian guitarist Phil Keaggy reflects on hearing his guitar in Reagan, his roots in the Jesus Music movement and why sharing the Gospel remains at the heart of his music more than 50
46 businesses accused of selling illegal THC products in Montgomery County
More than 40 businesses across Montgomery County have been charged in connection with the sale of illegal THC products, according to prosecutors.
NL Wild Card Game Discussion: Phillies vs Braves Wednesday
It’s game 2 of the National League Wild Card series as the Atlanta Braves will try to eliminate the Philadelphia Phillies Wednesday afternoon. LHP Cristopher Sánchez will make the start for the Phillies while the Braves will hope RHP Tyler Mahle can help them dispose of Philadelphia. First pitch is scheduled for 1:00pm central time […]
Awards Watch - SFFILM to Honor ‘Project Hail Mary’ with Sloan Science in Cinema Prize
Today, in partnership with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, SFFILM announced it will present the prestigious Sloan Science in Cinema Prize to Academy Award-winning filmmakers Phil Lord and Chris Mil…
SFFILM honors Project Hail Mary with Sloan Science in Cinema Prize
Ryan Gosling's space movie from Phil Lord and Chris Miller earns a $20,000 award and a San Francisco celebration ahead of Oscar season.
Broward Health Medical Center Dedicates Boyce Haller Family Cardiac Catheterization and Electrophysiology Suite, Made Possible by $5.2 Million Family Gift
(L-R): Michelle Thoman, chief operating officer, Broward Health Medical Center, Eileen LaMarca, consultant for the Broward Health Foundation, philanthropist Linda Haller, Shane Strum, president and CEO of Broward Health, Stacy Angier, commissioner on the North Broward Hospital District Board of Commissioners, and Lauri Littleton, associate chief nursing officer, Broward Health Medical Center, cut the ribbon […]
Phil Keoghan teases something special for “The Amazing Race” season 40
Could a celebrity edition be in the works?
Phil Keoghan teases something special for ‘The Amazing Race’ season 40
‘The Amazing Race’ host Phil Keoghan is teasing something special for season 40. Could a celebrity edition be in the works?
Eagles Named Potential Trade Suitor for Browns WR Jerry Jeudy
Could the Philadelphia Eagles trade for Cleveland Browns WR Jerry Jeudy?
MLB postseason turns to wild card Games 2 on Wednesday
The Dodgers could find out their National League Division Series opponent as early as Wednesday, with four more wild card games on the docket on the second day of the 2026 postseason. The Braves beat the Phillies on Tuesday at Truist Park in Atlanta thanks to a three-run home run in the eighth inning by […]
Ex-Eagles DT Blames The Trenches For Struggles vs Bears
This week, there will be plenty of focus on the struggles of the Philadelphia Eagles‘ safety duo, rightfully so. But in the eyes of former Eagles defender Hugh Douglas, the real struggles on the Eagles’ defense start with the defensive line play. Following the Eagles’ 27-7 loss against the Chicago Bears on Monday Night Football, […] The post Ex-Eagles DT Blames The Trenches For Struggles vs Bears appeared first on HEAVY.