Killing Greece by kindness to moochers, cronies and regulators. How far are Australia and the US down this road? The illusion of recovery in the US. Get with the Foundation for Economic Education, FEE. Americans today are better off than John D Rockefeller. How John Dewey wrecked American education. Negative interest rates.
Pictures. WW2 Lancaster over the Niagra Falls.
However, there were some real gems published by Phoenix, including a large number of debut novels by up-and-coming authors, books from talented writers cut loose by larger publishers, and even a number of established writers who were down on their luck and needed a pay check.
Despite (or perhaps because of) the kitschy nature of some titles, collectors of pulp art and design have embraced Phoenix Press for decades. Beyond the content of the books, they are inarguably a treat to look at because of their stylized specters, cartoon cowboys and designer damsels in distress all bursting off the dust jackets in vibrant colors.
For nerds. Turf Hallower. Vaclav Klaus page. How to organize collaboration in the office and waste time!
“A study found that in many companies, the time spent in meetings, on the phone and answering emails takes up to 80% of employees’ time”. Tips for musicians on how to date people who are not musicians.
Some memories of Sir Peter Medawar, scientist and communicator and sometime offspin bowler.
Sir Peter Medawar was respected by scientists and literati alike. It was perhaps not surprising, then, that he would choose to involve himself in the ‘two cultures’ debate of 1959 and beyond. The focus of his intervention was the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper. However, Medawar’s Popper was not the guru of falsification familiar from philosophy textbooks.
Medawar’s distinctive interpretation of Popper treated him instead as the source of insights into the role of creativity and imagination in scientific inquiry. This paper traces the context for Medawar’s adoption of Popperian philosophy, together with its application before the debate. It then examines, within the context of the debate itself, the way in which Medawar attempted to reconcile scientific inquiry with literary practice.
Medawar became increasingly convinced that not only was induction epistemologically unsound, but it was also damaging to the public role of the scientist. His construction of
Popperianism would, he envisaged, provide a worthy alternative for scientists’ self-image.
Atana Dey on Development in India.