General science/philosophy
A quick rundown of what I believe (ie. philosophical positions) is here.
I’ve studied history and philosophy of science as an undergrad and for my grad diploma, however I don’t really have an over-arching theme. Within history of science I am however interested in a nuanced view of progress, not thinking people in the past were scientifically stupid (eg. belived in a flat earth) and seeing pre-scientific beliefs (eg. not knowing sex leads to babies) in their own terms rather than as stupid.
I haven’t yet posted much on philosophy of science, just two posts on brute facts which consider how our intellectual surroundings shape what we count as a satisfactory scientific explanation.
I’m also very interested in the Galileo affair — especially since most of the information I see has some elements of misunderstanding. Here’s an earlier post followed by a more detailed one. There was a 2009 retrial of Galileo at the University of NSW, here’s some info on the retrial and verdict.
General skepticism
I would definitely consider myself a skeptic in most non-pejorative meanings of the word. Alas, an unsystematic skeptic, for on this topic I have a hodge-podge: a two parter on cranks, historical manipulation, wishful thinking, is there more than what we see, near death experiences, the relationship between vegetarianism and occultism, a bizarre racist denialism of Chomskean linguistics. In more general discussions, I’ve posted about the placebo effect and making science education fun.
Computing/maths/logic
I did my undergrad degree in computer science but haven’t posted much on this or anything math-related, maybe more to come. So far, the Monty Hall problem, the famous Byzantine Generals dilemma and a tribute to Lady Lovelace
I do find logic fascinating though: both awesome and
fallible (in the sense of incompleteness more than intuitive woo-woo). Also the use of logic in language has caused anguish.
Cognitive biases/psychology/consciousness
I think cognitive biases are some of the most important and ignored phenomena. They pervade all our lives so here’s a great starting point. Specific biases and features of the mind I’ve dealt with: natural animism, cognitive dissonance, branding bias, problems with positive thinking, bystander effect and assault, scope insensitivity (or in humanspeak, callousness to massive-scale suffering due to a poverty of imagination), bystander effect and slut shaming, incentives in medical care, synesthesia, false memories and loss aversion and tax returns
My grad diploma was in philosophy of mind dealing with materialist explanations of consciousness. More on this later, so far I’ve only covered The Emperor’s New Mind by Penrose, the alleged paradox of using the brain to study the brain and the importance of consciousness as the next battle with creationism.
Metaethics
On metaethics I’m still forming my opinion. I’m skeptical of taking our moral intuition at face value or most of the standard arguments for objective morality. Especially since these are used so fallaciously in religious arguments that are based on morality.
I have however made one brief attempt at something. On this view: (1) the kind of rigorous metaethics that most people want is impossible, but it’s a pseudo-problem since we don’t try justify logic to the “logic sociopath” (2) moral positions are not completely arbitrary since feelings like empathy seem special in terms of the evolution of a social species (3) a lot of moral disagreements are actually about facts, while the ones about values can be boiled down to a few simple extensions of the previous point. But much more to come.
Ethics
On practical ethics (as actually applied in life I’m a bit less wishy washy), embracing the principle of moral harm and rejecting the principle of moral disgust. Although it might just be an extension of point 3 above. Given this, I’ve discussed a lot about using the harm principle in sexual ethics even if it’s difficult: for pedophilia, necrophilia, consensual incest, bestiality, fetishes, promiscuity, celibacy, bisexuality and marriage.
In other matters, I’m pro-hunting but think those who eat meat need to self-analyse some of their justifications especially to do with supposed animal preferences. Also: Cloning. Putting a price on human life. Populate or perish. Darwin Awards.
Biology/evolution
I only know about this from reading popular science so don’t quote me! Still, it is all fascinating. Some criticisms of creationist stuff here and here. However I’m more interested in looking at common misconceptions that lie in the popular understanding of evolution (folk evolution) — biological “mistakes”, , nature’s “benevolence”, evolution as directed, good of the species, “broken” sexual instincts, bad design (and again), anthropomorphism, domestic animals and spiky penises.