First Blog

What we see in the current political races, both Democratic and Republican, is a race to the extreme.  The Democrats are not only drifting left but racing that away.   There is no limit to social programs they propose; cost seems not to be an option. The Republicans are constantly invoking the Reagan litmus test of conservatism.   Realism is lost.  The Republican candidates, such as Cruz, argue against the non-conservative purity of Trump.  They view this as key.  Each of them scrap against the over who is the most pure.  Ronald Reagan has achieved political sainthood.   Programs are irreverent; purity is. For the Democrats, both contenders are vying to inherit the Obama legacy, and both are traveling even further than Obama even dared toward the progressive agenda.  Both are trying to capture their base.  For the one, the rich are an infinitely taxable asset.  For the other, the rich comprise an achievement goal.  Both are dead wrong. The news outlets love this.  It gives extreme

As was recently posted on LinkedIn by Dr. Ya'akov Sloman,  "Scientific Realism, in the general case, is the idea that theories developed by the scientific method match what is "really" in the world. That is, if a theory has predictive value it means that what the theory describes actually exists in the world. In the particulars, every philosopher who considers this idea has variations on it, but the core is the epistemic certainty, the idea that what we know from successful scientific theories (those with predictive power) is not just a model that is internally consistent, rather it is a direct description of things-as-they-are." Is it possible to justify this position without resort to simple optimism or outright faith-based arguments?" Sounds long and philosophical.  Yet this simple post generated a blizzard of response.  Indeed, if you've been reading this column, there is almost nothing true or what you believe is true without some belief or faith