SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Key " 7,253 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Israel boss shuns politics before Republic of Ireland clash
Israel boss Ran Ben-Shimon insisted he is “not dealing with any politics” ahead of his side’s behind-closed-doors Nations League meeting with the Republic of Ireland in Serbia on Sunday. Republic manager Heimir Hallgrimsson’s press conference on Saturday morning in Backa Topola ended abruptly following a confrontational conclusion, after an Israeli journalist accused Irish players of calling their opponents "monkeys" in Hungary, where the reverse fixture was held.
Live updates, score from Florida football vs Missouri Tigers
Florida football plays Missouri at Memorial Stadium. Follow here for live score updates, highlights, injury news, key plays and instant analysis.
New Berlin West cruises past rival New Berlin Eisenhower
New Berlin West capitalized on turnovers and a key punt return to defeat rival New Berlin Eisenhower, 35-14.
TST Best Bets: October 3, 2026
Mississippi State gets a chance to show how far it has come Saturday, welcoming No. 7 Alabama to Starkville for a matchup of unbeaten SEC teams. Kamario Taylor has helped turn the No. 16 Bulldogs into an early surprise, but keeping up with the Crimson Tide will be their biggest test yet.Over in the Big Ten, No. 14 Iowa returns home after its dramatic win at Michigan to face No. 6 Ohio State. The Hawkeyes will lean on their defense again, this time trying to slow down Julian Sayin and Jeremiah Sm
Jordan Hall Out, Brady Pretzlaff In: Michigan State Availability Report
Reinforcements arrive in Madison as the Spartans regain key defensive depth, leaning on freshman standout Brady Pretzlaff to anchor the linebacking corps despite devastating injuries to two stars.
Michigan vs. Minnesota final injury report: Key players ruled out
Michigan football faces roster challenges against Minnesota with several key players ruled out.
Detroit Lions vs. Carolina Panthers preview: 4 key stats
A data-driven preview of Lions at Panthers, focusing on key stats and matchups.
Remembering the Packers’ best performances against the Buccaneers
Lynn Dickey, Sterling Sharpe, and more headline the best performances against the Buccaneers.
Gophers men's hockey opener postponed due to unplayable ice
The Gophers were due to play Michigan Tech in Houghton, MI.
Leucine does more than build muscle. It powers up your cells
The essential amino acid leucine can boost cellular energy production by protecting key proteins on mitochondria from being destroyed. The discovery reveals a new connection between nutrition and metabolism that could eventually lead to new approaches for metabolic disorders and cancer.
White Sox vs. Guardians: Two Keys to Winning the ALDS
The White Sox face a familiar rival in Cleveland as they look to keep their magical postseason run alive and advance to the ALCS. Here’s how they can do it.
David Ellison just brought in a co-CEO to run his new empire: Meet Ynon Kreiz
Ynon Kreiz's appointment as co-CEO of Skydance answers a key governance question for Ellison's soon-to-be-merged company.
Three Georgia Bulldogs Keys to Victory Against Vanderbilt Saturday Afternoon
The Georgia Bulldogs will try to get to 5-0 on Saturday.
Japan's impact on Mississippi takes center stage with 18,000 jobs
Mississippi leaders and Japanese officials discussed trade, jobs and the future of a key international partnership at Millsaps.
‘Can’t Get Much Bigger Than This,’ ‘GOAT’s HOME’ – Sports World Buzzes as Caitlin Clark Joins College GameDay’s 1st Iowa Visit in 20 Years for Ohio State Clash
Caitlin Clark is heading back to Iowa City, and she is doing it for one of the biggest football weekends the Hawkeye community has seen in years. The Fever star will serve as the celebrity guest picker on ESPN’s College GameDay when No.
A gut punch in Ohio: Nearly 1,400 laid off at truck factory just days before Trump rally
President Donald Trump is trying to rally voters in the Dayton, Ohio, area on Saturday.
A gut punch in Ohio: Nearly 1,400 laid off at truck factory just days before Trump rally
President Donald Trump is trying to rally voters in the Dayton, Ohio, area on Saturday.
Juan Luis Arsuaga, paleontologist: ‘Corruption is very Paleolithic, very chimpanzee-like’
The co-director of the Atapuerca archaeological site shares with EL PAÍS the key points of his new book, ‘The Answer,’ a luminous text that exudes admiration for our own species and love for nature
Arizona State Commissions Outside Investigator to Review Hockey Workout
Coach Greg Powers was placed on leave earlier this week.
Eagles Rule Out DeVonta Smith, Zack Baun for Game vs. Rams
Philadelphia will be down a couple of key contributors for an important game.
Key Moments from the Wiener-Chan Debate
The two Democrats campaigning to represent District 11 in Congress debated AI safety, housing affordability and foreign policy.
Devin Vassell Reveals Key to Spurs' Continued Winning Mindset
The San Antonio Spurs are playing an unselfish brand of basketball, and no one demonstrates that better than Devin Vassell.
Iowa Football: Betting Prediction For Ohio State Game
HawkeyeRoundtable publisher Brad Schultz shares his betting picks for the Iowa-Ohio State game, including spread and total.
Doobie Brother Michael McDonald meets son he gave up at 14
Doobie Brothers singer and keyboard player Michael McDonald was reunited with the son he gave up for adoption nearly 60 years ago. In the process, the Grammy Award-winning “Yah Mo
Former UCF F Keyshawn Hall Granted TRO, Gains Eligibility
A New York court ruling clears the path for the dynamic "Big Guard" to join Rick Pitino at St. John’s, bolstering the Red Storm’s offensive arsenal.
Zach Edey’s health is key to Grizzlies’ rebuild
Memphis center Zach Edey missed much of last season with a left ankle injury but said he’s in a better place entering this season.
Nashville-inspired entertainment destination planned for former Sunken City Brewery at Smith Mountain Lake
Scouting Patrick Mahomes : Las Vegas Raiders Chiefs Week
Las Vegas Raiders enter the Week 4 matchup against the Kansas City Chiefs. Keeping the passing attack grounded is key.
A Tiny Piece of Glass Beats Out Data Centers—As the Key to Protecting Human Knowledge for Thousands of Years
This crystal could transform digital data storage, preserving all human knowledge against fire, water, heavy impact, and hacking.
iOS 27’s Siri gets one thing very right that other AI assistants get wrong
Siri AI is now available in iOS 27 as a major upgrade to Apple’s assistant, and it differs greatly from other AI assistants in one key area.
Panthers Injury Report & Transactions
Let’s take a look at the Panthers key roster moves and the injury report heading into this week’s matchup.
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time
This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Broncos Blitzes Have Been A Force So Far This Season
The Denver Broncos use a lot of different blitz packages, and sometimes secondary members are the key.
Trump's investment push hits Europe as Irish PM eyes next tariff break
Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin eyes Kerrygold butter for tariff relief next after Trump's public commitment to lift duties on Irish whiskey exports.
Kings' Projected Starting Five Ranked No. 29 in NBA
The Sacramento Kings' quiet offseason has most projections placing the franchise towards the bottom of the Western Conference. But, the team should definitely see improvements with the addition of Darius Acuff Jr. and key players returning to health.
Finding sisterhood through sports: Kate Burgess’ career as a field hockey goalie
Kate Burgess remembers dodging tennis balls as her older sister, Reanne Burgess, shot them in their backyard in Holden, Massachusetts.
This Could Decide the Lions’ Sunday Night Football Showdown
The Lions are inching closer to Sunday Night Football, but with injuries piling up in Carolina and Detroit’s struggles against tight ends, there are several key factors that could decide this matchup.
Debt-saddled Argentina pitches 'golden passport' scheme to woo wealthy foreigners
Argentina is putting a price on citizenship as President Javier Milei searches for dollars to help the country meet its debts.
How ‘Purposeful Growth’ Makes The Case For Business’ Most Underused Advantage
Purpose didn't fail, business misunderstood it. In their new book Purposeful Growth, Helen Trickey and Philipp Reker show how leaders turn meaning into commercial momentum.
YPC annual gala set for Nov. 20 in Des Moines
Young Professionals Connection will host its 2026 Annual Gala from 5:30 to 10:30 p.m. Nov. 20 at The Shop DSM in downtown Des Moines. This year’s theme, “Welcome to YPC,” will highlight what the organization describes as Greater Des Moines’ combination of big-city opportunities and small-town connections. The event will include dinner, networking, a keynote…
PAHO regional meeting of health ministers concludes with new measures to strengthen health security and address key health threats
Health authorities approved new regional strategies to strengthen preparedness for health emergencies, tackle antimicrobial resistance, curb dengue and other arboviral diseases, and improve food safety, while advancing access to vaccines, medicines and other essential health technologies across the Americas.
Penn State vs. Northwestern: Four Keys to Victory
Penn State vs. Northwestern faces off in a rare primetime matchup on Friday night. The Nittany Lions will look to bounce back after last week's 24-20 defeat to Wisconsin. The loss was ugly. The offense struggled to move the ball, and the defense collapsed in the fourth quarter. It was uncharacteristic of a Penn State …
Shohei Ohtani Injury Concern Gets Major Update Before Dodgers’ NLDS
The Los Angeles Dodgers are the reigning World Series champions, and they have their sights firmly trained on becoming the first team since the New York Yankees over a quarter century ago to win three straight rings.And one of the key pieces of their lineup is star Shohei Ohtani, who had a recent stay on […] The post Shohei Ohtani Injury Concern Gets Major Update Before Dodgers’ NLDS appeared first on HEAVY.
Sea Monkeys Show Scientists How To Rewrite a Rule of Turbulence
Scientists assumed that energy flows in only one direction in a turbulent system. What they didn’t know, until they looked closely at brine shrimp, was that a simple factor can reverse the flow.
Patriots team captain reveals two biggest keys to upsetting Bills
Patriots safety Kevin Byard revealed what the defense needs to do on Sunday to have the best shot at upsetting the Bills.
North Country Sports Scoreboard: Friday, Oct. 2, 2026
There was action in cross country, football, hockey, soccer, swimming, tennis, and volleyball on Thursday.
Gates Gains From Business Strength Amid Persisting Headwinds
GTES sees stronger demand, margin gains and data center growth, but weak agriculture and rising costs remain key headwinds.
Iowa Football: Final Prediction For Iowa-Ohio State Showdown
Can the Hawkeyes launch themselves into College Football Playoff contention?
Sports quiz of the week: winners, losers, prodigies, heroes, villains and rivals
Have you been watching football, chess, cricket, rugby, motor racing, hockey, boxing, table tennis and horse racing?
Raiders Fullback Plays Key Role In New Offense
The Las Vegas Raiders use fullback Connor Heyward to play a major role in their new offensive scheme.
Eagles-Rams matchups to watch in Week 4
Here are some key matchups to watch when the Eagles host the Rams in Week 4 on Sunday afternoon.
Steve Hilton faces steep odds in bid for California governor after 20-year GOP drought
Republican Steve Hilton's biggest obstacle to becoming California's next governor is simple math.
Affordability is on voters’ minds in Pa. swing districts as the cost of gas and groceries skyrockets
The cost of living is the rise as the war in Iran continues. That could hurt Trump-aligned incumbents in key Pennsylvania swing districts.
'Money out of politics': Understanding Proposal 2 on Michigan November 2026 ballot
If voters approve Proposal 2, known as the “money out of politics” proposal, certain organizations and individuals would be limited in funding political campaigns, and regulations would apply to other types of political communications.
Yankees news: Anatomy of an offensive explosion
Surprise offensive outburst keys sweep; Judge still taking BP; Rasmussen poses problems; Extra bench bats pay off
"It's Genius!" Adam Smith Amazed By AFC Bournemouth's Recruitment Model
Adam Smith has admitted he still cannot work out how Bournemouth's recruitment team repeatedly finds top young talent. The long-serving defender explains why the squad now trusts the club to replace key departures, praises Kroupi and Rayan, and reveals why the Cherries' model gives them an edge.
Congo's Ebola outbreak has recorded over 4,000 deaths as authorities struggle to contain the virus
Congo's Ebola outbreak has now recorded more than 4,000 deaths as authorities struggle to contain the virus.
Congo's Ebola outbreak records more than 4,000 deaths as authorities struggle to contain the virus
Congo’s Ebola outbreak has now recorded more than 4,000 deaths, authorities said as they struggle to contain the spread of the virus.
Benefits platform Afore adds life insurance path through Ascent alliance
The referral arrangement gives Afore advisors access to buy-sell and estate planning for employer clients who also own businesses
It’s week seven in the High School Red Zone
SPARTANBURG, SC(WSPA)-Week seven in the High School Red Zone means most area teams will start region play. Here are the key games coming up: Wren vs. Powdersville Dorman vs. Fort Mill B. Springs vs. Northwestern Rock Hill vs. Spartanburg Byrnes vs. Hillcrest Westside vs. Laurens Clinton vs. SCS We have full coverage of all of […]
Allianz names new CEOs at Allianz Partners and Allianz Direct
Philipp Kroetz moves from Direct to lead Partners, with Partners COO Laurent Floquet taking over Direct, as Tomas Kunzmann heads to the Allianz SE board
Southwest baseball coach Nick Mendez reflects on 25-year career, impact on players
Ladd McConkey unable to practice
Foot injury sidelines Los Angeles Chargers WR Ladd McConkey Thursday
Penguins Re-Assign McGroarty; More News Possible
Perhaps it will be a harbinger of good news for the Pittsburgh Penguins but Thursday, the team re-assigned young forward […]
Browns Week 4 inactives: Who's in, who's out?
The Browns have one key offensive lineman who wil be missing for their primetime matchup in Week 4.
Potential RJ Barrett Extension Could Depend on One Key Factor
There's only so much money to go around with Kawhi Leonard now on the team, but re-signing Barrett may not make sense after this season.
Annual Maine Public Health Conference Focuses on Getting ‘Back to the Basics’
This year’s theme, “Nourish to Flourish,” focused on strengthening fundamental building blocks across the state. A key focus: food access.
AD speaks on Matthew Mayich, ASU hockey next steps
Arizona State AD Graham Rossini said ASU is collecting information about the events that put Matthew Mayich on life support.
Iowa employers report stability in ABI quarterly survey
Iowa employers reported stable financial health and a neutral outlook on the economy for the fourth quarter in the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s latest quarterly business survey. ABI surveys its board of directors each quarter to track business sentiment, identify common concerns and inform advocacy and programming priorities. Key survey findings include: Employers…
Carolina Hurricanes games come to Palmetto Sports & Entertainment Network!
National Hockey League’s Carolina Hurricanes, today announced that the team has partnered with Gray Media to simulcast 10 Hurricanes Hockey Network game broadcasts over the air in markets throughout the Carolinas.
Guidance for eating a heart healthy diet | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
For heart health, eating a healthy, balanced overall diet that is easy to maintain long-term is key, according to Harvard Chan's Frank Hu.
NHL Says Players In ‘Hot For Hockey’ Campaign Approved Content
The romance novel–inspired marketing effort has received mixed reviews.
Lions Welcome Key Figure Back to Practice
The Detroit Lions were back on the practice field on Thursday as they continue preparations to face the Carolina Panthers on Sunday evening, in which they’ll look to improve their record to 3-1.Detroit, who remains shorthanded with several key players still missing because of injury, did get a bit of good news with regard to […] The post Lions Welcome Key Figure Back to Practice appeared first on HEAVY.
Getting too many political texts? Here’s how Texans can stop or block them
How to stop political texts on your phone in Texas before Election Day
Google’s overdue Gemini 4 Argon reaches the frontier with mixed results for science
Google’s Gemini 4 Argon brings competitive AI performance at introductory prices, but independent tests show uneven results against leading rivals.
Cubs facing 'interesting' catcher question on three key players
This question for the Cubs this offseason will be very interesting.
Larkin Will Miss First Two Games
Injured Dylan Larkin has been ruled out for the first two games of the Detroit Red Wings season. “He’s working […]
Michigan high school football rankings: Top 20 ahead of Week 6 (Sept. 29)
We’re midway through the Michigan high school football season, and the Week 5 edition of the Power Poll arrives with plenty to sort through.
NVIDIA and Microsoft tease RTX Spark announcements for October 7 Windows event
RTX Spark will be a key focus of Microsoft’s October 7 Windows event with Jensen Huang in attendance. The first systems appear aimed at premium laptops and workstations rather than gaming PCs.
Measure B: San Diego County Health & Safety Act
In this 2026 General Election guide, explore an in-depth explanation of San Diego County's Measure B, including pros and cons, endorsements and key arguments to help voters make informed decisions.
One Feature Makes The Switch 2 The Best Way To Play These New 10/10 'Lord of the Rings' Games
The best LotR games ever made have have been missing a key component of the Nemesis System for years until the new Switch 2 ports came along
Ubisoft forms Massive Entertainment to focus on Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon and more
Yesterday’s job listings made it clear that Ubisoft is still filling key leadership roles for the Sp
Supreme Court grants review of Trump administration's mandatory detention policy for immigrants
The case will test a key pillar of the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda.
Elevance Health (ELV): Conviction Pays Off as Underwriting Disciplines Stabilize Margins
Cambiar Opportunity Fund, managed by Cambiar Investors, published its Q2 2026 investor letter. The letter can be downloaded here. U.S. equity markets experienced a significant rebound in Q2, with the S&P 500 rising 15.2% and the Russell 2000 up 21.5%. Growth stocks outperformed value, although value retained a year-to-date lead. The market’s rise was fueled […]
Control Resonant’s New Patch Misses A Much-Needed Addition
'Control Resonant' has new patch notes out, but the game is still missing a key element that would improve combat.
Ocean Floor “Pools Of Death” Could Be Key To Explaining The Origins Of Life On Earth, And Possibly Further Afield
Besides their importance for the search for life on other planets, these pools could help us find major mineral deposits.
Sony Quietly Launched A New PlayStation 5 Model, And Its Key Changes Ensure System Longevity
Sony quietly launches a new PlayStation 5 Slim revision with a redesigned motherboard and improved liquid metal cooling.
Supreme Court to review key part of Trump’s immigration policy
(CNN) — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to review President Donald Trump’s policy of imposing mandatory detention without bond hearings for people who entered the country illegally, taking up one
Elon Musk to return his attention to government, advise Pentagon on future of war
Musk will join Anduril founder Palmer Luckey and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on a panel for what the Defense Department is calling Project Meridian.
Cops Can Bypass iPhone’s Automatic Reboot to Get Into Locked Phones, Leaked Video Claims
Magent Forensics, the owner of the GrayKey phone unlocking tool, says it can bypass an iPhone rebooting feature that was locking cops out.
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.
Real conservation efforts don’t ignore areas based on business
'Let us work toward real California 30x30 protections without rejecting key ecosystems for inclusion due to the clout of timber and agribusiness interests,' writes an L.A. Times reader.
2026-27 OHL Power Rankings (Week 3)
See how the league shapes up heading into the third weekend of play.
Naomi Campbell's 5-year ban on serving as a charity trustee in England and Wales is overturned
Supermodel Naomi Campbell has won a legal challenge to overturn a five-year ban on being a charity trustee in England and Wales.
Hometown’s Best: Nominate your favorite local live music, entertainment, or sports venue in Southwest Virginia
What’s your favorite local live music, entertainment, or sports venue in Southwest Virginia?