SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Contrary " 41 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Juventus hold exploratory talks for Soule’s return
Matias Soulé is among the candidates to leave Roma in the coming days and be sacrificed on the altar of capital gains. The Argentine winger isn’t pushing to leave; on the contrary, he’s stalling....
Craig Federighi Explains Why Apple Pivoted to a Siri Chatbot App
Apple senior vice president of software engineering Craig Federighi has explained why the company launched a standalone Siri app in iOS 27, after previously characterizing a dedicated chatbot as contrary to its Apple Intelligence strategy. The new Siri app, announced at WWDC earlier this week, gives users a centralized place to manage and revisit their conversations with Siri AI.
Science, technology not contrary to faith, pope says
At his Sept. 23 general audience, Pope Leo XIV said that progress in science and technology is not contrary to belief in God.
Sadiq Khan may try to stop Scotland Yard signing Palantir contract
Exclusive: Mayor raises concerns about using public money to support firms ‘who act contrary to London’s values’
JD Vance’s telling ‘give us another chance’ flub
Vice President JD Vance this week asked voters for “another chance” — something that is decidedly contrary to President Donald Trump’s midterm messaging — before seeming to catch himself.
Participating in heavy-contact youth sports, dropping out of sports linked to acts of violence
Contrary to popular belief, simply playing organized youth sports does not reduce the likelihood of committing violence in one’s lifetime, and in some cases, may increase it, according to a new study.The study, published online recently in the Sociology of Sport Journal, found that while most survey respondents — including those who played y...
Bipartisan calls grow for answers about Mitch McConnell’s health
President Trump says he has "no idea" how Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is doing as questions mount about the status of his health. MS NOW Congressional Reporter Mychael Schnell has more details on what we know right now. Author of "To The Contrary" on Substack Charlie Sykes joins Alicia Menendez to discuss.
Trump’s DOJ tells Trump he can hold onto government docs when he leaves office, contrary to Watergate-era law
A new memo from the Justice Department says President Donald Trump no longer has to follow a Watergate-era law barring him from holding on to presidential records when he leaves office.
No sweat: Ashton Kutcher swears that he showers, despite past podcasts to the contrary
In 2021, Ashton Kutcher and wife Mila Kunis said they didn't shower often and didn't wash their kids unless they saw dirt. Now he sets the record straight.
Viewpoint: Europe needs a new scientific contract
The White House's new science strategy should be required reading in the Berlaymont and every European capital.Not because Europe should copy it. Parts of it should concern Europeans deeply. But because it asks the question Europe has so far avoided while steadily losing ground in the global race for technological leadership.Europe already possesses many of the world's finest universities, scientists and research-intensive companies. It produces world-leading research in fields ranging from quantum technologies and biotechnology to climate science. Yet time and again Europe generates the scientific breakthroughs while others build the companies, industries and strategic advantages around them, particularly in digital technologies. Increasingly, we find ourselves regulating technologies whose underlying capabilities were developed elsewhere.This is not primarily a scientific failure. It is an institutional one.The settlement that shaped modern science policy emerged after the Second World War. In Science, the Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush argued that governments should invest in fundamental research while protecting scientists from political direction. Public investment was justified precisely because no government, university or company could predict where the next transformative discovery would emerge.That scientific contract served liberal democracies extraordinarily well. It underpinned decades of advances in medicine, computing, energy and communications, but the world for which it was designed no longer exists.Artificial intelligence is transforming not only technology but the production of knowledge itself. Advanced chips, computing power, data and scientific instruments have become strategic assets. Scientific knowledge now diffuses globally almost instantly. Competitive advantage increasingly lies not in making discoveries first, but in possessing the infrastructure, capital, engineering capability and institutions required to translate those ideas into products, industries and strategic advantage.The old boundaries between science, industrial policy, national security and geopolitics have largely disappeared. Dual-use technologies now underpin both economic power and military deterrence.The US has recognised this shift. In July, the White House published Science: A New Golden Age, a comprehensive attempt to rethink the relationship between science and national power. The report builds on Bush's legacy, but departs from his framework in important ways. Science is no longer treated simply as the source of future discoveries. It is presented as the foundation of economic resilience, technological leadership and national security. AI, advanced infrastructure and the capacity to build become as important as discovery itself.Yet the report also reveals a striking paradox. The same administration calling for “a new golden age” of US science has simultaneously proposed deep cuts to the federal research enterprise while expanding political influence over the allocation of public research funding. Europe should therefore distinguish between the report's diagnosis and its prescription. The diagnosis, that science has become a strategic asset, is compelling. But the prescription is self-defeating. Long-term technological leadership depends on strong universities, academic freedom and the institutional autonomy that makes scientific discovery possible. This distinction matters. Bush's achievement was never simply to make science serve national strength. It was to establish a division of labour in which governments invested in research without attempting to direct discovery itself. Scientific breakthroughs emerge precisely because researchers retain the freedom to pursue questions whose value cannot yet be demonstrated and whose conclusions cannot be anticipated.Neither China, nor the USAs science becomes more strategically important, the temptation to politicise it inevitably grows. But scientific freedom is not an obstacle to technological leadership, it is an essential precondition.China represents the opposite model. For decades it has integrated science, manufacturing, infrastructure and industrial policy into a single national strategy. Its ability to mobilise resources around critical technologies is formidable. But it does so within an authoritarian system where scientific priorities are increasingly inseparable from political power.Europe should imitate neither model. It should learn from the strategic ambition of the US without importing its growing politicisation of science. And it should learn from China's capacity to build without adopting its concentration of power.Instead, Europe needs a scientific contract of its own. Bush's scientific contract protected the freedom to discover because the defining challenge of the 20th century was producing new knowledge. Europe's next scientific contract must preserve that freedom while ensuring that scientific discoveries can be converted into technological, industrial and strategic capability. Because in a transactional world, Europe's freedom to shape its own future depends on its capacity to build it.Related articlesThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to knowEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationNIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research fundingThis does not mean subordinating free science to competitiveness or industrial policy. On the contrary. Scientific autonomy remains the first principle of Europe's next scientific contract. Governments should not direct scientific discovery. Their responsibility is to ensure that Europe's scientific, industrial, financial and regulatory institutions work together rather than in isolation.Meeting that responsibility requires far more than research funding. European researchers need access to world-class computing infrastructure, advanced laboratories, shared datasets and scientific facilities. Innovative companies need patient capital, testing environments and a genuine single market in which they can scale without facing 27 different regulatory regimes. Public procurement must evolve from purchasing existing technologies to creating markets for new ones. Regulators must become partners in experimentation rather than guardians of yesterday's rules.A connecting architectureEurope does not need to invent the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) model from scratch. Britain's Aria, Germany's Sprind and Wellcome Leap already show that Europe can build institutions capable of taking high-risk, mission-oriented bets while preserving democratic accountability. The challenge now is not to create more isolated initiatives, but to connect them to Europe's broader scientific, industrial and financial system so that breakthrough discoveries can scale.Above all, Europe must stop treating research, innovation, industrial policy, finance and security as separate policy domains. The challenge is no longer to create excellent institutions in each of these fields, but to make them work as one European innovation system. Europe's strength will increasingly depend not on excellence within institutions, but on excellence across them.Europe's ambition should be neither to imitate the US nor to emulate China. It should demonstrate that scientific freedom, democratic legitimacy and technological capability are not competing objectives, but mutually reinforcing strengths. In an age of geopolitical rivalry, Europe's greatest advantage may ultimately be its ability to attract the world's best talent by combining scientific freedom, democratic openness and technological ambition.Bush's scientific contract helped define the 20th century because it protected the freedom to discover. Europe's challenge is not to abandon that achievement but to extend it. The defining task of Europe's next scientific contract is to preserve the freedom to discover while building Europe's capacity to translate scientific discovery into technological power.Kaare Nielsen is founder of Pomus, a Danish think tank on science and innovation.
The ’Gay’ Attacks on Lindsey Graham Are All About Politics
Was Lindsey Graham gay? As the author of a book about the history of gay Washington, D.C., it’s a question I’ve been asked frequently for years, and even more so since his sudden death last weekend. The South Carolina Republican’s lifelong confirmed bachelorhood, vocal intonation, and Southern dandy demeanor (if not sartorial choices) prompted many to conclude that he was, as they say in that part of the country, “light in his loafers.” Graham’s repeated attestations to the contrary had zero effect on those invested in the narrative that he was. Only about the matter of J. Edgar Hoover’s rumored cross-dressing (for which there is much circumstantial but no direct evidence) am I questioned more. Whenever I’ve been asked to speculate upon Graham’s sexuality—and speculate was all that I or anyone else could do—I always answered the question honestly. While my personal sense is that Graham was probably gay, as a journalist and a historian I cannot rely on my intuition to make factual assertions. (Gaydar hasn’t yet been scientifically perfected.) Given the absence of any known female or male romantic interests, Graham may very well have been a heterosexual unlucky in love. He might also have been asexual. Barring the highly unlikely postmortem emergence of a personal diary or some other unassailable evidence attesting to Graham’s innermost yearnings, we will never know the answer. As is depressingly the case these days when a public figure dies, a chorus of voices reveled in Graham’s passing, many of them making light of his presumed homosexuality.
Samsung Galaxy Watch 9 codenames suggest there will be a new Classic this year
Despite recent rumors to the contrary, it looks like we may get a Galaxy Watch 9 Classic this year, after all.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Strait of Hormuz remains 'de facto closed', no matter what the US says: Expert
Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime, says the economics and legalities of President Trump's proposed toll on the Strait of Hormuz made his U-turn on this inevitable. He also explains why he believes the Strait remains de fact closed despite U.S. assertions on the contrary, noting that freight rates and insurance premiums have surged on Trump's latest comments.
Commentary: The ‘Supergirl’ flop is being misread
Contrary to its title character, "Supergirl" did not take flight. The film grossed $38 million domestically in its opening weekend, less than one-third of what "Superman" earned in its debut
CIA assesses Ukraine was not targeting a Putin residence in drone attack, contrary to Kremlin claim, sources say
The CIA has assessed Ukraine was not targeting a residence used by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a recent drone attack in the north of his country, according to US officials, undercutting an assertion the Russian president had made to Trump in a Monday phone call.
RFK Jr. has tied fluoride with 'stupider' kids. What a new study says
A new study found people who drink fluoridated water long-term are just as smart as those who don't, contrary to RFK Jr.'s comments.
Trump says in social post that 2024 assassination try was political plot
Trump claims in a Truth Social post that a "Democrat Plot" drove the Butler assassination attempt in 2024, despite FBI's conclusion to the contrary.
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
Scientists just uncovered the secret behind nature’s “proton highway”
Scientists have zoomed in on how phosphoric acid moves electrical charges so efficiently in both biology and technology. By freezing a key molecular pair to extremely low temperatures, they found it forms just one stable structure—contrary to predictions. This structure relies on a specific hydrogen-bond network that may be universal in similar systems. The discovery helps explain how protons travel so quickly and could inspire better energy materials.
Trump’s 75-country immigrant visa ban struck down by judge
The Trump administration’s ban on visas for immigrants from 75 countries was struck down by a federal judge on Friday, who ruled it was “contrary to law” and outside the statutory authority of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Contrary to some reports, you don't have two brains
A bad press release makes a good excuse to look at how developmental biology works.
Positive and Near-Positive Aspects of Designer Science
In C. W. Howell’s mind, intelligent design is still recovering from the Dover trial, and if there’s evidence to the contrary, he doesn’t want to see it.
New study favors 'fuzzy' dark matter as the backbone of the universe — contrary to decades of research
New research using a space-time phenomenon predicted by Einstein presents evidence that the invisible backbone of the universe may be much "fuzzier" than we realized.
Why political gerrymandering in the South will likely continue to consider voters’ race despite Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court has barred considering race when crafting legislative districts. But race could remain embedded in political gerrymandering, despite vehement claims to the contrary.
The 'bad for baseball' Dodgers are just bad ... for now
Despite all the comments claiming the contrary since the Tarik Skubal trade, the Los Angeles Dodgers are, in fact, human.
Portland’s proposed arts tax makeover prompts legal threat by business lobby
The Portland Metro Chamber claims the City Council lacks legal authority to raise the tax from $35 to $50 without voter approval, despite city attorney's opinion to the contrary.
Racial gerrymandering may be here to stay
The Supreme Court has barred considering race when crafting legislative districts. But race could remain embedded in political gerrymandering, despite vehement claims to the contrary.
Sports without politics is a fantasy and the World Cup proves it
From ancient Greece to Nazi Germany, sport and politics have long been intertwined. Nevertheless, we still imagine that international sport can be kept above the fray and serve as a neutral arena where nations compete on merit alone. In this article, diplomacy scholar Geoffrey Allen Pigman argues the 2026 FIFA World Cup shows this is a dangerous illusion. When international sport is left entirely to revenue-maximizing private bodies like FIFA, it doesn't escape politics, but rather surrenders to its worst expressions. With the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics fast approaching, the IOC must decide whether to learn that lesson or repeat the same mistakes. The largest and most lucrative FIFA World Cup ever draws toward its climactic conclusion amidst a swirl of controversy. Team members, staff, fans, and spectators have been denied their right to enter the United States to participate, and US President Donald Trump intervened with FIFA boss Gianni Infantino to overturn a referee’s call that Trump believed disadvantaged the US national team. It is a moment to step back and reflect on what the purposes of international sport mega-events like the World Cup, and international sport more broadly, are, and what they should be. Does international sport serve public purposes? Is there a public interest? Or is it primarily a private endeavor organized by commercial enterprises to entertain the global public (and generate profit in the process), which is occasionally used by governments and leaders for raisons d’etat? Central to the idea of sport is the principle of fair play, which in the international context demands that games be free from political interference. However, it is impossible to separate sport from politics, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding. The most positive political use of international sport through the millennia has been to facilitate diplomacy. The use of international sport for diplomatic objectives has existed since at least the time of the ancient Olympic Games, around which was instituted the custom of the Ekecheiria, or Olympic Truce, between participating states to facilitate fair competition and diplomatic achievements by ensuring that participants could travel safely to the Olympiad. In his seminal work On Diplomacy (1987), diplomacy scholar James Der Derian characterized the objectives of diplomacy as overcoming alienation and mediating estrangement between governments and between peoples. One increasingly important diplomatic tool in the technology-infused media environment over the past century has been public diplomacy, under which governments and non-state diplomatic actors (e.g. transnational corporations) communicate to global publics about their international policy objectives and to shape their global brand image. Political scientist Michał Kobierecki, in his important book Sports Diplomacy (2020), views sports diplomacy as falling broadly within the ambit of public diplomacy, as international sport intimately involves the participation of global publics as spectators and consumers of global media. Diplomacy scholar Stuart Murray and this author, in a 2013 article, distinguish between international sport used for diplomatic purposes and international sport-as-diplomacy, which encompasses the range of diplomacy that occurs as teams and competitors, spectators and fans, and government officials all converge for international sporting events like the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. Diplomacy scholar H.E. Chehabi, in a 2001 article on US-Iran sports diplomacy, describes the interaction between spectators and fans at international sporting events as “people-to-people diplomacy,” in which relationships develop independently of governments and their objectives. Diplomacy by the aforementioned definitions is often unsuccessful. Moreover, all too often the tools of diplomacy may be employed by governments and other actors to thwart or oppose the objectives of diplomacy as characterized by Der Derian. Governments routinely use the tools of public diplomacy to disseminate propaganda, spreading misinformation in the attempt to deceive global publics about their objectives and to create misleading impressions about their brand identity. Within sports diplomacy, the term “sportswashing” has been coined recently to describe how governments invest in and promote international sport to create positive global public impressions of their nations and, in doing so, to distract the global public from their deficient records in areas such as human rights and democratic governance. Murray, in his 2018 book Sports Diplomacy: Origins, Theory and Practice, introduces the concept of sports anti-diplomacy, wherein governments intentionally use international sport to advance aggressive and nationalistic objectives. Obvious historical examples include Hitler’s use of the 1936 Berlin Olympics to glorify his Third Reich and the 1969 El Salvador-Honduras football “war.” SUGGESTED READING The beautiful game made ugly By Emily Ryall FIFA argues that it is and seeks to be apolitical in its stewardship of international Association Football (soccer). FIFA policies governing bids to host the World Cup require uninhibited and non-discriminatory access for players, team staff, and spectators of all participating countries to host nations and venues. It became clear soon after Trump returned to power in the United States in January 2025 that Trump’s political intentions and objectives to limit non-US citizens from living and working in the United States and, in numerous cases, even visiting the country, would collide with FIFA’s host nation policies. Beginning soon after the start of the second Trump administration, US federal authorities imposed restrictions on entry to the United States of citizens of between 20 and 40 countries for any purpose, with only limited exceptions. Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began arresting non-US citizens in the United States, including persons with and without legal status, holding them in jails, concentration camps, and other detention facilities until they were deported to their home or third countries, where they faced substantive risks to their personal safety. FIFA boss Gianni Infantino, in an effort to ensure the most successful and lucrative World Cup in history, engaged diplomatically with President Trump in an attempt to facilitate entry to the US for World Cup participants. Infantino did all in his power to ingratiate himself with Trump, to the extent of creating a FIFA “Peace Prize,” which he awarded to Trump in December 2025 at a ceremony in the then Trump-controlled John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, on the occasion of the World Cup draw. The prize was an ersatz consolation for someone who aspired in vain to win the rather more prestigious and well-known Nobel Peace Prize. And in the run-up to the World Cup, conditions became worse. In February 2026, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched a war of aggression against Iran, illegal under international law, under the false pretence that Iran’s government was preparing to attack the United States and Israel. During the US aerial bombardment of Iran, US planes bombed Azadi Stadium, the facility where Iran’s national football team trained. As the 2026 FIFA World Cup began, it was clear that Infantino’s efforts had been for naught: the Trump administration would not adhere to FIFA policies governing access to World Cup host nations. World Cup referee Omar Artan, a citizen of Somalia, was denied a US visa to enter the United States to participate in the World Cup. Trump’s government only granted US visas to Iran’s football team ten days before they were scheduled to arrive for the tournament. Numerous members of the support staff for Iran’s team were denied US visas. Iran’s team, which had been scheduled to train in Arizona, was directed to shift its training site to Tijuana, Mexico, notwithstanding that all three of their group stage matches took place at US venues. The US Department of Homeland Security only permitted the Iranian team to enter the US on the day before each scheduled match and then to return to Mexico immediately after playing. Members of Iraq’s and Switzerland’s football teams were delayed for hours by US officials at the US border, and an Iraqi team photographer was refused entry. Spectators and fans from Haïti and Iran were denied entry to the United States altogether. A large number of fans from a range of countries had their applications for US visas rejected. There were multiple off-ramps through which participants could have avoided the negative consequences of Trump’s decisions for the 2026 World Cup. Once it was clear that the Trump government intended to violate the established expectations for World Cup hosts, FIFA could have shifted the matches scheduled to take place in the United States to Mexico and Canada. The three nations were already designated as co-hosts, and host cities and venues had been selected. Once it was clear that FIFA, governed by FIFA boss Gianni Infantino’s dependent and dysfunctional relationship with Trump, would never consider this option on its own, it fell to the national football federations to act. The national federations, particularly some combination of federations of the leading contenders (France, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, England, Germany, etc.), could have refused to participate under the US-imposed conditions or, at the least, demanded an ironclad agreement with the Trump government that FIFA policies on access would be respected. ___ International sport is inextricably entangled with diplomacy of different sorts, for good or ill, it cannot be considered to be in the purely private realm and left to revenue-maximizing private actors. ___ Why did neither FIFA nor the national football federations act to protect the interests of players, team staff, referees, fans, and spectators? In essence, the relentless engines of capitalism prevailed over norm observance, ethics, and fair play. The revenue interests of FIFA, sponsors, global media, and host cities won out. FIFA’s managers viewed hosting another World Cup principally in the United States as a veritable pot of gold for FIFA and its collaborators. FIFA has estimated its own revenue over the 2023-26 budget cycle, which includes the 2026 World Cup, at $13 billion, revised up from an initial projection of $11 billion, and 72% higher than the previous revenue cycle. Of that total, FIFA is estimated to have generated $8.9 billion from the Cup itself in revenue from TV rights ($3.92 billion), sponsorships ($2.69 billion), ticket sales ($3.1 billion), licensing rights, and other sources. A joint study by FIFA and the World Trade Organization estimates that the World Cup will contribute over $40 billion to global GDP, including nearly $14 billion in direct visitor spending in the three host countries (but principally in the United States, which hosted the lion’s share of the matches). The FIFA World Cup is now reportedly “the single most lucrative recurring commercial property in global sport.” And yet, notwithstanding the Trump government’s uses of the World Cup for sports anti-diplomacy, and the climate of anxiety that this created for participants and spectators, diplomacy that did not depend upon governments was able to thrive at the World Cup. Examples of successful people-to-people diplomacy were legion, as citizens of towns and cities across the States, as well as in Mexico and Canada, welcomed team members, their families and supporters, to training sites across North America. Fans of different teams joined together in person in stadiums for matches, at watch parties and bars, and at welcome events sponsored by host cities. The joy and camaraderie shared between the citizenry of Boston and Scotland’s “Tartan Army” of fans is but one example of how the “Beautiful Game” brings people together. Friendships forged across continents are likely to endure well beyond the Cup final. Even those achievements cannot be seen as unalloyed, however. As South African football fan Byron Pillay commented to Al Jazeera, “Football is called the Beautiful Game for a reason, for its ability to unite people. But it’s hard to believe in that magic with the politics and war rhetoric off the field of play, especially when one of the tournament hosts is central to that.” Ultimately, the experience of the 2026 FIFA World Cup illustrates that, as international sport is inextricably entangled with diplomacy of different sorts, for good or ill, it cannot be considered to be in the purely private realm and left to revenue-maximizing private actors. As long as there is the possibility of diplomatic progress in mediating estrangement between governments or between peoples, there is a broad and overarching public interest in international sport. Likewise, as it would be difficult to put on an international sport mega-event without international sporting organizations like FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), global media firms, and companies purchasing sponsorships, public and private interests in international sport must coexist, most likely somewhere on a shifting spectrum between partnership and rivalry or cross purposes. As the World Cup wraps up, the IOC needs to consider its lessons before the scheduled 2028 Los Angeles Olympics if they want to avoid a media-hyped Trump version of the 1936 Berlin Olympiad. The IOC and the National Olympic Committees need to set conditions on and make demands of Trump’s government with clearly articulated consequences for non-compliance, up to and including cancellation of the Games. Time is running out for the IOC, as unlike with the FIFA World Cup, there is no at-the-ready alternate venue for Los Angeles.
Gavin Newsom Memoir Describes Difficult Childhood, Contrary to Image
Mr. Newsom, the California governor and a potential presidential candidate, writes that the privileged caricature of his background is mistaken.
No Celtic deal for Bakayoko, and rightly so
Contrary to rumours flying around over the last few days, Celtic will NOT be offering a contract to former French international Tiemoue Bakayoko…Tiemoue Bakayoko of AC Milan celebrates with the fans...
Jadarian Price Will Own the Seahawks' Backfield Sooner Than Later
Despite any early info to the contrary, the Seattle Seahawks didn't spend a first-round pick on running back Jadarian Price just to make him an afterthought in their offensive attack.
Business Restructuring Review Vol. 25 No. 4 July-August 2026
In This Issue New York Bankruptcy Court: Premature Allegations of Creditor Mistreatment Insufficient to Deny Chapter 15 Recognition of Foreign Restructuring Proceeding In In re ARD Finance, S.A., No. 25-12794 (MG), 2026 WL 817458 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2026), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was presented with a petition seeking chapter 15 recognition of Luxembourg's recently enacted bankruptcy law governing judicial reorganization proceedings. The court granted the petition, turning aside challenges to recognition voiced by a creditor group arguing that recognition should be denied based upon allegations of unfairness to creditors in the Luxembourg proceeding that would make recognition manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy. According to the bankruptcy court, recognition was warranted because: (i) the rules and procedures governing the proceeding under Luxembourg law were fundamentally fair; (ii) the petition otherwise satisfied chapter 15's recognition requirements; and (iii) the creditor group's allegations were premature, given the fact that the Luxembourg court presiding over the debtor's restructuring proceeding had not confirmed a restructuring plan, and all creditors had the right to participate fully and voice their objections in the proceeding (including the right to appeal an order approving a plan). [read more …] Florida Bankruptcy Court Examines Scope of Discovery in Chapter 15 Cases In In re Banco Master, S.A., No. 25-24568-SMG, 2026 WL 931729 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2026), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part post-recognition motions filed by an insider of a foreign debtor seeking to bar or limit discovery sought by the debtor's foreign representative concerning allegedly voidable transfers involving the debtors' U.S. real property. According to the court: (i) although chapter 15 includes its own discovery provisions among the relief that may be granted to a foreign representative, the expansive discovery available in cases under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code is also available in chapter 15 cases; (ii) the discovery sought by the foreign representative was permissible; (iii) discovery regarding matters that were the subject of a pending adversary proceeding had to be undertaken under the more restrictive rules applicable to such proceedings; and (iv) a discovery request would be barred to the extent that it sought production of documents or testimony from a subpoenaed entity that exceeded the geographic limitations specified in such rules. [read more …] Delaware District Court Affirms Chapter 15 Recognition Order Enforcing Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases In U.S. Int'l Dev. Fin. Corp. v. Credito Real S.A.B. de C.V. SOFOM, E.N.R. (In re Credito Real S.A.B. de C.V. SOFOM, E.N.R.), 677 B.R. 192 (D. Del. 2026), appeal filed, No. 26-2356 (3d Cir. June 5, 2026), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a bankruptcy court order granting chapter 15 recognition to a Mexican "concurso mercantile" proceeding and enforcing nonconsensual third-party releases approved by the Mexican court. Agreeing with the bankruptcy court that the releases were not manifestly contrary to U.S. public policy, the district court concluded: "It is well settled that U.S. bankruptcy courts can give effect to foreign orders in recognized foreign proceedings pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 15, even when those orders contain relief unavailable under U.S. law. [The appellant's] arguments misconstrue the Supreme Court's narrow holding in Purdue, applicable in Chapter 11 cases, as well as the statutory framework of Chapter 15 and its core policy objectives. Accordingly, I will affirm the Enforcement Order." The ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. [read more …] Fifth Circuit: Bankruptcy Court, Not State Court, Had Jurisdiction to Allow or Disallow Administrative Expense Claim In Storey Minerals Ltd. v. EP Energy E&P Co., LP (Matter of EP Energy E&P Co., LP), 169 F.4th 609 (5th Cir. 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed lower courts' rulings disallowing a creditor's administrative expense claim. It also rejected the creditor's argument that, because the claims were predicated on state law, a state court should adjudicate the merits of the state law causes of action before the bankruptcy court could allow or disallow the claim as an administrative expense. According to the Fifth Circuit, even though the causes of action were based on state law, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine whether the creditor's claims should be conferred with administrative expense priority in the debtors' chapter 11 case. [read more …] New York Bankruptcy Court: Dismissal of Involuntary Chapter 11 Case Filed Prior to Commencement of Foreign Restructuring Proceeding Unwarranted In In re Xinyuan Real Estate Co. Ltd., No. 25-10745 (PB), 2026 WL 592250 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3. 2026), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered the bona fides of an involuntary chapter 11 petition filed by certain holders of U.S. dollar-denominated notes against a holding company for a group of Chinese property development companies that filed a restructuring proceeding in the Cayman Islands after the noteholders filed the involuntary chapter 11 petition. The court denied the debtor's motion to dismiss the chapter 11 case. Given the timing of the filing of the Cayman Islands restructuring proceeding, the absence of any progress in the proceeding for seven months, the debtor's need to restructure notes governed by U.S. law, and the debtor's lack of any meaningful contacts to the Cayman Islands, dismissal of the chapter 11 case was unwarranted under the applicable provision of the Bankruptcy Code, international comity, or the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [read more …] Bankruptcy Court Evaluates Trustee's Authority to Sell Avoidance Actions and Right of Target Defendants to Object In In re Law Enf't Officers Sec. Union, No. 24-70277-JAD, 2026 WL 560452 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2026), a chapter 7 trustee sought court approval to sell certain avoidance actions to a creditor of the debtor's estate. Potential targets of the subject avoidance actions objected, arguing that such claims were nontransferable powers of the trustee rather than saleable estate property and urging the court to approve their competing settlement with the trustee. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disagreed with the potential defendants, holding that they lacked standing to object to the proposed sale, that avoidance actions are indeed estate property, and that the sale—rather than the settlement—best served the estate's interests. [read more …] U.S. Supreme Court Bankruptcy Roundup in Brief In Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction Inc., No. 25-6, 2026 WL 1686028 (U.S. June 11, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Fifth Circuit decision judicially estopping a chapter 13 debtor from asserting a personal injury claim against a construction company because the debtor failed to disclose the claim during his bankruptcy case. In so ruling, the Court held that "[t]he Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim." It represents the first time that the Court has applied judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context, although it has suggested in other contexts that it may be inappropriate where an inconsistent legal position resulted from "inadvertence or mistake." Also in June, the Court denied petitions for certiorari in a few notable bankruptcy cases. [read more …] Newsworthy Heather Lennox (Cleveland/New York) (Star Individual), Bruce Bennett (Los Angeles) (Senior Statesperson), Kevyn D. Orr (Washington) (Eminent Practitioner), Gregory M. Gordon (Dallas) (Band 1), Carl E. Black (Cleveland), Corinne Ball (New York) (Senior Statesperson), Brad B. Erens (Chicago), Jeffrey B. Ellman (Atlanta), T. Daniel Reynolds (Cleveland), and Dan T. Moss (Washington/New York) were recognized as leading lawyers in the practice area Bankruptcy/Restructuring in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA: The World's Leading Lawyers for Business. The 2026 edition of Lawdragon 500 Leading Bankruptcy and Restructuring Lawyers ranked the following lawyers: Corinne Ball (New York) (Hall of Fame), Bruce Bennett (Los Angeles), Carl E. Black (Cleveland), Jeffrey B. Ellman (Atlanta), Brad B. Erens (Chicago), Gregory M. Gordon (Dallas), Heather Lennox (Cleveland/New York), Joshua M. Mester (Los Angeles), and Kevyn D. Orr (Washington). Fabienne Beuzit (Paris) and Jasper Berkenbosch (Amsterdam) were among the "Leading Individuals" ranked in the 2026 edition of The Legal 500 EMEA guide in the field of Restructuring and Insolvency or Insolvency. Rodolphe Carrière (Paris) was named a "Next Generation Partner" in the practice area Insolvency. Sid Pepels (Amsterdam) was selected by Global Restructuring Review's 40 under 40 2026. He was identified as a Rising Star within the global cross-border restructuring community. Global Restructuring Review is a leading digital subscription service, news outlet, and information platform dedicated exclusively to cross-border insolvency and corporate restructuring law. Fabienne Beuzit (Paris), Rodolphe Carrière (Paris), and Isabelle Maury (Paris) were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in France™ in the practice area Insolvency and Reorganization Law. An article written by Corinne Ball (New York) titled "Comity and Fairness are Critical to Granting Additional Assistance under Chapter 15: A Canadian Reverse Vesting Order and Related Releases in Proceedings Involving Canadian and U.S.-Affiliated Companies Are Approved" was published in the June 24, 2026, edition of the New York Law Journal. An article written by Caitlin K. Cahow (Detroit) titled "New York Bankruptcy Court Weighs In on Adequate Assurance of Future Performance under Assigned Leases and Chapter 11 Plan Exculpation Provisions" was published on June 8, 2026, in Lexis Practical Guidance. An article written by Trisha L. Mowbray (Real Estate; Chicago) and Ryan Sims (Washington) titled "Chapter 11 Plan that Abridged Non-Debtor Lessee's Rights to Remain in Possession After Rejection Unconfirmable as Having Been Proposed in Bad Faith" was published on June 16, 2026, in the Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable. An article written by Dan T. Moss (Washington/New York), Corinne Ball (New York), Isel M. Perez (Miami), and David S. Torborg (Washington) titled "Texas Bankruptcy Court Adopts Barnet Rule Requiring Foreign Debtor to Have U.S. Assets to Be Eligible for Chapter 15 Relief" was published on June 10, 2026, in Lexis Practical Guidance. An article written by Daniel J. Merrett (Atlanta) and Nathaniel Parr (Atlanta) titled "Southern District of Texas Clarifies Post-Purdue Course for Consensual Third-Party Releases and Gatekeeping Provisions" was published on June 11, 2026, in Lexis Practical Guidance. An article written by Corinne Ball (New York) titled "LMEs, Sophisticated Investors and Equitable Mootness: The Fifth and Third Circuits Warn Against Testing the Limits of Chapter 11" was published in the June 2026 issue of the American Bankruptcy Institute Journal. Nicholas J. Morin (New York) was quoted in an article titled "Serta Ruling Offers Damages Road Map in Lender-on-Lender Disputes," published by Bloomberg Law on July 7, 2026. The article discussed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez's July 7, 2026, ruling that participating lenders in Serta Simmons Bedding's 2020 non-pro rata uptier exchange breached the credit agreement's ratable-sharing provision, and awarding excluded lenders more than $261 million in damages. The opinion resolves six years of litigation related to Serta's 2020 transaction, where it raised $200 million in new financing and exchanged $1.2 billion of term loans for $875 million in superpriority debt. Judge Lopez found that the debt-for-debt exchange constituted a "payment" under the credit agreement, requiring proportional sharing among lenders, and dismissed various defenses raised by the participating lenders. The case is Serta Simmons Bedding LLC v. AG Centre Street Partnership (In re Serta Simmons Bedding LLC), 2026 WL 1968535 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2026). The New York Law Journal has recognized Andrew M. Butler (New York) as a 2026 "Rising Star" in Restructuring/Bankruptcy as part of the New York Legal Awards. The Rising Star category recognizes New York's most promising lawyers age 40 and under who have distinguished themselves through exceptional legal work, leadership, and contributions to the profession. Lawyer Spotlight: Daniel J. Merrett Dan Merrett, a partner in the Atlanta Office, has spent nearly 20 years representing all manner of stakeholders in complex corporate restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations. His practice extends to related transactions and disputes involving acquisitions; divestitures; credit facilities; securities; environmental obligations; and vendor, employee, and governance matters. Dan has substantial experience managing mass tort liabilities, including the restructurings and related chapter 11 cases of affiliates of Georgia Pacific and Johnson & Johnson, implemented to resolve asbestos and talc liabilities. He also represents key parties in energy and infrastructure matters, including facility owners, EPC contractors, and joint-venture parties. Dan was a key player in the restructuring teams in the historic bankruptcies of the City of Detroit and Chrysler. His other significant representations in chapter 11 cases include AFA Foods, Alpha Natural Resources, Dana Corporation, M&G Chemicals, McDermott International, Monster/CareerBuilder, Transtar Industries, and Westinghouse. He is licensed in both the United States and England & Wales and recognized in restructuring by Chambers USA and Best Lawyers.
Top 8 Heavyweights Collide at UFC 331 in Los Angeles
On September 19, the UFC 331 event takes place at the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles, California. Waldo Cortes-Acosta puts his top-5 ranking on the line in a heavyweight showdown against Curtis Blaydes.Multiple sources have confirmed the match-up to Heavy.com after an initial report by journalist Danny Segura. Contrary to initial reports listing Noche UFC, […] The post Top 8 Heavyweights Collide at UFC 331 in Los Angeles appeared first on HEAVY.
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Rahm Emanuel bikes N.H. as he mulls 2028 presidential primary
“Look, I’m not into a politics of retribution, contrary to my image,” Emanuel said. “But I am into totally airing out all of this corruption.”
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.
Scientists finally reveal the shocking truth behind England’s dolphin deaths - Futura-Sciences
A Drastic Decline Along English Shores The dolphin populations along the English coastline have been disappearing at an alarming rate for several decades. Contrary to what many might hope, these aren’t dolphins simply seeking warmer waters elsewhere. The brutal reality is that this is not migration—it’s mass mortality. English researchers...
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
WHO Didn’t Recommend Lockdowns, Contrary to Health Officials' Suggestions
As the U.S. formally exited from the World Health Organization last month, Trump administration officials misleadingly claimed that the WHO “pushed” or “promoted” lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The group did not explicitly recommend lockdowns, although it also did not advise countries not to implement them. It said it recognized that the measures might be needed in some cases.