SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Bat " 6,807 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Manitowoc letters question fluoride and support Brad Smith
This week’s Manitowoc letters debate fluoride research and support Brad Smith for Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District.
Memorial and Reitz battle till the final minute
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (WEHT) — In a battle of undefeated teams, Memorial high school football team beat Reitz in a close one 30-27. Next, the Tigers will travel to Floyd Central to take on the Highlanders. While the Panthers will face Bosse.
Henderson County loses close game to George Rogers Clark
HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) — After trailing 21-7 at halftime, Henderson County high school football team battled back against George Rogers Clark to lose in the end 53-48. Next the Colonels will travel to Christian County to take on the Tigers.
Dodgers World Series Hero Klein Makes Final NLDS Roster Push
Reliever Will Klein battles back from right elbow surgery to secure a last-minute spot in the Los Angeles Dodgers’ postseason bullpen this year.
Culture refocuses attention on the Palestinian cause: ‘It has always been central to political struggle’
Musicians’ tours, film festivals and literary forums keep the flame for Gaza alive and spark debates about the limits of free expression and the concepts of censorship and cancellation
Sunland Park residents raise health concerns over proposed concrete plant near homes
Residents living near the intersection of Pete Domenici Hwy and McNutt Rd in Sunland Park are concerned about a proposed concrete batch plant near neighborhood.
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.
Solo Reload Victory Cup in NA West: Event 1 Event 1 Round 1
Battle your way to Platinum in Reload Ranked to be eligible for the first and second Events of the Season, Diamond for the third, and Champion for the final Event of the Season! Compete for the opportunity to win a cash prize! Reach Round 2 (top 1600 in EU; top 800 in NAC; top 320 in OCE, ASIA, ME, BR, and NAW), where every player who earns a Victory Royale will earn $100 USD. Good luck and have fun!
Veteran Blackhawks Blueliner Gets Brutally Honest on Team’s Struggles
The Chicago Blackhawks 2026-2027 season has gotten off to a brutal start as the team finds themselves 0-2 right off the bat. Their season opener on Tuesday versus the Vegas Golden Knights featured a 5-2 loss. They followed that up by being shutout 6-0 at the hands of the Utah Mammoth on Thursday night. This […] The post Veteran Blackhawks Blueliner Gets Brutally Honest on Team’s Struggles appeared first on HEAVY.
Will May Make the Brewers NLDS Roster?
The Milwaukee Brewers evaluate rotation depth to combat a surging San Diego Padres lineup.
Irvine bat tests positive for rabies, OC Health Care Agency says
Orange County Health Care Agency said the bat was found in a neighborhood near Canyon View Elementary School
Southport fire chief files lawsuit against Novant Health after mother’s fatal fall
Southport’s fire chief has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Novant Health and an attending doctor, alleging hospital staff ignored warnings that his 67-year-old mother was at high risk of falling before a fatal bathroom fall triggered an untreated brain bleed.
Key Moments from the Wiener-Chan Debate
The two Democrats campaigning to represent District 11 in Congress debated AI safety, housing affordability and foreign policy.
WATCH LIVE: 3rd Congressional District Debate with Celeste Maloy and Kent Udell
Republican Celeste Maloy and Democrat Kent Udell are running to represent eastern and southern Utah, along with parts of the Wasatch Front, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Trump heads back to Texas on Wednesday as GOP fights to keep state red
Texas, long a safe Republican state, has emerged as a top battleground in midterm races up and down the ballot — but especially in the U.S. Senate race.
Kennedy Center Honors move to new venue amid building closure
The Kennedy Center Honors gala will move to Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., after the center’s closure amid a legal battle over the addition of Trump's name to the building.
Modern Science: An Ohio University professor studies the mechanisms behind bats using echolocation
ATHENS, Ohio (WOUB) —There's a lot we know about how animals navigate their world, but there's even more we don't. This included how bats use echolocation until recently.Peishu Li is an assistan
Dolly Parton's nephew wants more time to defend himself against restraining order from her estate
Dolly Parton’s nephew, Bryan Seaver, is seeking more time to secure a lawyer in a legal battle involving a restraining order taken out by her estate | Talk 1370
This week in health care policy: September 28 – October 2, 2026
Drug pricing CMS finalizes GLOBE pilot. On September 30, CMS finalized the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing model, a program that ties Part B drug rebates to prices paid in 19 countries. It will cover physician-administered drugs in randomly selected communities throughout the US, representing about 25 percent of Part B beneficiaries. It runs […]
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
AP report: Senate Republicans move cash from North Carolina to Kansas as battle for majority shifts
The moves offer a stark sign of how dramatically the Senate map has shifted just a month before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.
Politics Friday: Keith Ellison, Ron Schutz appear in their first attorney general race debate
Friday at noon, the first head-to-head debate in the race for Minnesota attorney general. In his bid for a third term, DFL incumbent Keith Ellison faces Republican Ron Schutz, a prominent Twin Cities attorney.
2 raccoons, bat found in Gloucester County test positive for rabies
Two raccoons and a bat found in Gloucester County have tested positive for rabies this week.
Rabies detected in Crook County bat prompts public health warning
Bend, Ore. (KTVZ) --- Crook County Public Health is advising residents to take precautions to protect their families and pets after rabies was recently detected in a local bat in Crook County, Ore. Health officials noted that rabies has been found in bats throughout the state, making awareness and preventive measures critical. Rabies is a
This year’s Kennedy Center Honors will be relocated amid ongoing legal battle
For the first time, the annual Kennedy Center Honors will be held somewhere other than the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts amid a political and legal fight that has put the institution’s future in limbo.
Jennifer Lopez and golden glamour dazzle at Paris Fashion Week
PARIS (AP) — Saint Laurent sent out a river of gold, as giant chandeliers bathed a glossy black outdoor runway in golden light and the Eiffel Tower shimmered in the
Is UK politics 'boomer-centric'?
An hour of debate with Miatta Fahnbulleh, Julia Lopez, Suella Braverman and Oli Dugmore.
Texas Daily: At a Contested UT Event, Hasan Piker Weighs In on Talarico vs. Paxton
Although the live streamer’s talk was hotly debated beforehand, his appearance was ultimately met with little pushback on campus.
The Road to the Texas Midterms
Co-hosts Brandon Rottinghaus and Jeronimo Cortina delve into the latest news in politics
Batteries on wheels: Oregon pushes businesses to switch heavy-duty fleets to electric vehicles
The Team Behind PixelJunk Is Partly to Thank for Ace Combat 8's Brilliant Cloud Tech
Weather you like it or not
RFK Jr.'s AI claims spark physician backlash as debate over medical AI intensifies
Robert F. | Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said on Tuesday that artificial intelligence can provide patients a second opinion that is "much better informed than any doctor in the country."
Report shows $1B Maine budget gap
The report comes as Republicans and Democrats battle for control of the Legislature and governor’s mansion.
UFC 332 preview, predictions: Worst main event in history?
UFC 332 is set for Delta Center in Salt Lake City on Sat. night (Oct. 3, 2026) with the preliminary card streaming on Paramount+, followed by the main card on the CBS network — home to this 2008 record breaker. There exists a subset of combat sports fans who remain puzzled as to why a […]
Something Deep Inside the Earth Is Messing With Time—and Making Days Longer Than 24 Hours
A hidden battle of torques 3,000 miles beneath your feet decides whether today runs long or short.
Original Xbox Version of Halo: Combat Evolved Made Available to Play in a Browser
The original Xbox version of Halo: Combat Evolved has been made available to play in a web browser.
Would-be Pelosi successors debate who’s more progressive in San Francisco congressional race
In the race to succeed Nancy Pelosi, the candidates clashed over who will be most aggressive in regulating AI and who is closest to organized labor
Rapper Rick Ross arrested on domestic violence battery charge
Rick Ross has been arrested in Miami on two counts of felony battery, including one by strangulation, which allegedly involve domestic violence. The "Hustlin'" rapper, 50, was arrested around 5
Democrats expand battleground for House, reaching into bloodred districts
The additions include Kansas’s 2nd, Michigan’s 1st, North Carolina’s 13th, New Jersey’s 2nd, Oklahoma’s 5th, Texas’s 9th, Virginia’s 6th and Washington’s 5th.
CD Projekt Red addresses divisive lighting changes in a new Witcher 3 Remastered PC patch
The Witcher 3 has been patched to address lighting issues in the Remastered edition. This has been a hotly debated topic since the overhaul was released.
Ally of Spanish PM threatens to derail housing decree as fury over evictions grows
Spain's leftist government faced a bruising battle in parliament on Friday after an allied party opposed its plans to tackle a housing crisis stirring public protests, particularly over the eviction of an 87-year-old woman.
Can Mamdani's new plan bridge the divide with Jewish New Yorkers?
This week, Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a 33-page plan to combat antisemitism.
Birdbrained Science: Eco-friendly has never tasted so good
It’s an unspoken debate as old as time: glass, aluminum or plastic? Which material makes the best bottle?
Derzypolski, Perez debate Tallahassee economy, party politics
P.J. Perez and Tom Derzypolski, the candidates vying for City Seat 3, debated affordability, Amendment 3 and other issues at a Sept. 25 forum.
With a steel mill and campaign cash, Trump and GOP leaders launch an Iowa rescue mission
Republicans are on a rescue mission in Iowa, touting new plans for a $15 billion steel mill as President Donald Trump and the state’s GOP leaders rush to blunt the political impact of a battered economy and prevent the governor’s office, a Senate seat and three House seats from slipping into Democratic hands in November.
Yankees news: Anatomy of an offensive explosion
Surprise offensive outburst keys sweep; Judge still taking BP; Rasmussen poses problems; Extra bench bats pay off
Mike Mazzei, Cyndi Munson face off in gubernatorial debate ahead of midterm election
OETA aired a pre-taped debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor on Thursday.
Ochsner Health doubles the number of operating rooms at Ochsner Medical Complex
Patients across the Baton Rouge region now have greater access to specialized surgical care closer to home following an expansion of the surgical center at Ochsner Medical Complex - The Grove.
S.F. House candidates spar over housing, AI in Chronicle-KQED debate
On most issues, the two Democrats vying to replace Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi articulated similar policy stances.
Browns win battle with Steelers but are losing war with Deshaun Watson
The Browns are surprisingly in first place in the AFC North. That should be good news, but let's fast forward a bit, writes columnist Nate Davis.
Watch Live: Connie Chan, Scott Wiener Debate for SF Congressional Seat
San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan and state Sen. Scott Wiener meet live onstage Thursday night at KQED for a critical debate ahead of the November election.
Detroit Lions Could Get Unexpected Advantage vs. Panthers
Rain could impact Lions-Panthers on Sunday Night Football, but Jake Bates and Detroit's physical style could give the Lions an unexpected advantage.
Rising yields are wreaking havoc on stocks outside the AI trade
After the 10-year Treasury yield rose as high as 5.34% for the first time since 2002, stock traders are fiercely debating when the selloff in bonds will start to trigger
Comptoller DiNapoli fends off attacks from challenger Hernandez in NY1 debate
Republican challenger Joseph Hernandez assailed incumbent Tom DiNapoli's record and ethics.
Voter ID proponents say California Democrats lying about Trump support
Republicans respond after gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra said during a debate Wednesday that President Trump put Proposition 39 on the ballot.
Full Debate: DiNapoli, Hernandez face off in debate
Incumbent state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and Republican challenger Joseph Hernandez are expected to participate in the debate.
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 […]
Bats found inside Puyallup elementary school; health officials recommend treatment
The Puyallup School District is taking steps to address a bat infestation at Edgerton Elementary School after at least eight bats have been found in the buildin
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — Rapper Rick Ross was arrested in Miami Beach early Thursday and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation, authorities said.
Trump sends out $500 ACA refunds and a letter promoting his record
The rebate checks are headed to nearly 1 million people President Donald Trump says were overcharged under the Affordable Care Act.
Battle of the Bays features winless Buccaneers and struggling Packers
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers (0-3) need a victory even more than the Green Bay Packers (1-2) on Sunday. At least Green Bay has quarterback Jordan Love. Tampa Bay is turning to undrafted rookie Jalon Daniels after Baker Mayfield dislocated his right thumb in a loss to Minnesota.
GA Sec. State Nominee, NJ-7 & Aviation Politics
GA Sec. State GOP nominee Tim Fleming, the battle for NJ-7 and how aviation is shaping politics—and could be impacted by the midterms.
USA TODAY Sports predicts Florida vs Missouri outcome in Week 5
Here are the picks from USA TODAY Sports' college football experts for the Florida Gators vs Missouri Tigers battle at Faurot Field in Week 5.
GA Sec. State Nominee, NJ-7 & Aviation Politics
GA Sec. State GOP nominee Tim Fleming, the battle for NJ-7 and how aviation is shaping politics—and could be impacted by the midterms.
GA Sec. State Nominee, NJ-7 & Aviation Politics
GA Sec. State GOP nominee Tim Fleming, the battle for NJ-7 and how aviation is shaping politics—and could be impacted by the midterms.
Mass. native, Good Morning America correspondent reveals cancer battle: ‘It’s shocking’
A Mass. native and Good Morning America correspondent is opening up about a health battle he kept private for months.
The Iron Wall in Rabat: Why Morocco’s Political Shift Won’t Touch the Abraham Accords
As Fatima Ezzahra El Mansouri Takes the Helm as Morocco’s First Female Prime Minister, Israel’s Most Resilient North African Alliance Remains Bulletproof
Maine Dems, GOP exchange jabs over fundraising in the governor’s race
The focus on funds comes as candidates prep for a series of debates and with early voting starting statewide on Monday. Several polls show Pingree ahead of Charles and independent Rick Bennett by a significant margin.
Political debates matter if we treat them as more than theater
Despite being imperfect, debates provide an opportunity that candidates should embrace as a chance to engage honestly with voters.
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
Authorities say rapper Rick Ross was arrested early Thursday in Miami Beach and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation. Online court records show Ross, whose legal name
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
Authorities say rapper Rick Ross was arrested early Thursday in Miami Beach and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation. Online court records show Ross, whose legal name
Neuroscience launches seminar series with talk on brain circuitry by renowned neurobiologist Peter Strick P’98
The Bates Program in Neuroscience kicked off its new Neuroscience Seminar Series with a talk from Peter Strick P’98, Thomas Detre Professor and Chair of Neurobiology at the University of Pittsburgh.
Toyota opens $50M+ EV battery lab at its R&D center near Ann Arbor
Toyota opened a new electric vehicle battery lab in Saline Township despite the national pullback from electrification.
Immigration, inflation, Iran: WA candidates for open Congress seat debate
From the first question of a debate Wednesday night, John Duresky and Amanda McKinney sparred over big issues in Washington's 4th Congressional District.
Debate stays civil: disagreement over war, health care, affordability
Health care and the war with Iran separated the two candidates running for Iowa's 4th Congressional District during a debate Wednesday night that featured extended civility between the two candidates.
Debate stays civil: disagreement over war, health care, affordability
Health care and the war with Iran separated the two candidates running for Iowa's 4th Congressional District during a debate Wednesday night that featured extended civility between the two candidates.
10 Democrat-held House seats Republicans could flip to save their majority
President Donald Trump's margins in redrawn districts fuel Republican hopes of flipping 10 Democratic House seats in the battle for Congress.
Trump's $500 Obamacare 'rebate' checks land in prime political battlegrounds
President Donald Trump's administration is sending $500 payments to nearly 1 million Americans this week, in a move that strategists say could potentially influence races that may determine whether his Republicans maintain control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
Trump's $500 Obamacare 'rebate' checks land in prime political battlegrounds
President Donald Trump's administration is sending $500 payments to nearly 1 million Americans this week, in a move that strategists say could potentially influence races that may determine whether his Republicans maintain control of Congress in the November midterm elections.
Trump's $500 Obamacare 'rebate' checks land in prime political battlegrounds
By Andy Sullivan, Helen Coster, Ahmed Aboulenein and Tim McLaughlin WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration is sending $500 payments to nearly 1 million Americans this
California governor rivals clash over costs, homelessness, and Trump in only debate
Steve Hilton cast himself as a change candidate while Xavier Becerra defended his experience in a heated California governor debate.
Apple TV just added a bunch of free classic movies, here’s everything new
Apple TV keeps adding new batches of classic movies to kick off each month, with 13 fresh films available free for subscribers today.
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
Authorities say rapper Rick Ross was arrested early Thursday in Miami Beach and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation. Online court records show Ross, whose legal name
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
Authorities say rapper Rick Ross was arrested early Thursday in Miami Beach and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation. Online court records show Ross, whose legal name
Mauricio Umansky reacts to California gubernatorial debate, local politics
Stuart Varney hosts The Agency Founder and CEO Mauricio Umansky to discuss the California gubernatorial debate between Steve Hilton and Xavier Becerra. They analyze housing issues, red tape and the Los Angeles mayoral race.
Pilot crashed and died after mental health battle
Investigators say Peter Beeson's poor mental health make it "likely" he crashed on purpose.
Control Resonant’s New Patch Misses A Much-Needed Addition
'Control Resonant' has new patch notes out, but the game is still missing a key element that would improve combat.
Trump does not rule out demolishing the Kennedy Center
The Kennedy Center was closed last month amid a legal battle over whether President Donald Trump can add his name to the performing arts venue.
Rapper Rick Ross charged with battery after domestic violence accusation
Authorities say rapper Rick Ross was arrested early Thursday in Miami Beach and charged with battery related to a domestic violence accusation. Online court records show Ross, whose legal name
Rapper Rick Ross arrested on domestic violence strangulation charge
Rick Ross has been arrested in Miami on two counts of felony battery, including one by strangulation, which allegedly involve domestic violence. The "Hustlin'" rapper, 50, was arrested around 6
How Washington Funded the Politicization of Science
Over the last half-decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects designed to influence academic policies, both in the sciences and other disciplines. The aim was to foster a progressive conception of social justice in these fields. In pursuit of this end, the foundation earmarked nearly a million dollars for a project titled “Creating Inclusive Scientific Societies through Policies and Practices,” over a million for a project on “Faculty Online Learning Communities for Gender Equity,” and over $2 million to foster “racial equity focused departmental change.” Through a public records request, I’ve obtained the proposals and progress reports for dozens of NSF grants designed to promote social justice. Although funding for these grants was eventually halted by the Trump administration, the projects illustrate an important facet of recent higher-education policy. Many of the university policies that promised “social transformation” didn’t arise in a vacuum. They were actively encouraged by outside funders—often by the federal government itself. Subscribe Accreditation—the peer-review process which enables universities to receive federal grants and student loans—has recently become a policy battleground, with accreditors wielding significant power over both universities and academic disciplines. In 2020, when Oregon Health and Science University’s medical school issued an extensive diversity action plan—which promised “consequences” for employees who failed to support “DEI, anti-racism and social justice”—it specifically pointed to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the medical-school accrediting body, to justify the overhaul. The NSF actively promoted DEI-focused accreditation policies. The proposal for a $1.2 million program on promoting “community engagement” in STEM, which I obtained through a records request, notes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology was exploring changes to its criteria “that would incorporate JEDI [justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion].” The proposal promised to “support broader JEDI efforts in the general criteria for engineering.” Another grant funded a conference designed to “identify and share best practices and strategies to integrate IDEA principles in accreditation criteria”—referring to an acronym that stands for “inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.” Scholarly societies have become another flashpoint in debates over higher education. Critics argue that many of these societies, which have the power to shape entire disciplines, have become increasingly politicized. Again, through its giving, the NSF played a role in promoting this politicization. In one million-dollar grant that received funding in 2024, a group of psychologists proposed a series of social-justice reforms to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The proposal, which I obtained via a records request, asserts that “[r]edistributing resources (such as moving different people into leadership roles) is not enough” and that the society’s “governance structures do not yet reflect its stated values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Its solution: review and rework the society’s criteria for leadership development, academic awards, conferences, and publications. Adjusting review criteria informed by “intersectionality” designed to fight “epistemic exclusion” is an easy way to introduce de facto ideological litmus tests into the peer-review process. For many of the grants I obtained, such litmus tests seem to be the point. “Academic departments are racialized social systems that produce and sustain the byproducts of systemic racism,” a proposal for a $2.7 million project funded in 2024 asserts, promising to develop “departmentally-focused change efforts that cultivate values, assumptions, and behaviors that advance racial equity.” The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign’s million-dollar “I-ADVANCE” project, which effectively created a small DEI bureaucracy on campus, promised to Embed 28 ADVANCE faculty fellows in STEM departments” to amplify its equity goals. Another $1.2 million project promised to create “faculty online learning communities,” made up of scientists at universities around the country, that would eventually build department-level diversity action plans. “Ultimately,” the proposal asserts, perhaps more perceptively than its authors realized, “both organizational change and intersectionality frameworks deal with power.” Indeed, such grants confer a great deal of power to administrators and scholar-activists, who can even use the mere availability of funding as a tool to advance their causes. That history is worth remembering amid today’s debate over federal involvement in higher education: Washington has been shaping university priorities for years, including by financing efforts to instill progressive ideas about race, gender, and equity into academic institutions—and many of the policies those grants encouraged remain embedded within universities long after the federal money has stopped flowing. John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Share
Candidates keep Iowa’s 4th District debate civil despite policy differences
Republican Chris McGowan and Democrat Dave Dawson disagreed on several issues but also found common ground during their first major debate of the election cycle, hosted by KTIV in Sioux City.
Ace Combat 8 developer apologises for Belkan War pre-order backlash, explains why it happened and vows to explore possible solutions
The team behind Ace Combat 8 has issued a statement in response to the controversy surrounding the game's pre-order bonus game, The Belkan War.
NFL fans question roughing call involving Patrick Mahomes
Ringo Chiu/Shutterstock.com Roughing call sparks debate after Chiefs win A roughing-the-passer call involving Patrick Mahomes sparked plenty of discussion after the Chiefs defeated the Dolphins 24-10. Chop Robinson was flagged after making contact with Mahomes as he released the ball. The penalty extended Kansas City’s possession and later became a talking point because of how…
Redpath comes in for Bath's game with Exeter
Bath make seven changes for the visit of Exeter as they prepare for their first home game since June's Prem semi-final defeat.
Announcers set for Bears vs. Jets Week 4 game
The Chicago Bears will battle the New York Jets in Week 4. See who will be calling the game on FOX this Sunday.
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.