But that's my point, everybody wants the imprimatur of mathematics on their field and so scrambles to call their field a "hard science".

It's Defining Derivation Down.

I commented on "zoology".  If Dawkins used some elementary discrete structures as an explanatory tool, well, if you want to make that the trigger for "hard science" you're welcome to do so.

As a mathematician, I see the difference between motivating new mathematics (physics, computer science) and using some very elementary ideas as a vehicle for explanation.

You can get some interesting questions in partially-ordered sets from consensus trees...in theory.  They really haven't gotten that far yet, but maybe someday.

Nature magazine is hardly a disinterested party.

Why does everyone want to make themselves into a mathematician without actually...becoming a mathematician? It's like they have PDE envy.

Ace at Ace of Spades, an atheist himself (or at least a strong agnostic, he seems to waiver) has expressed a dismay that evangelical atheists seem to be under the belief that if religious belief were exorcised (as it were) then the world would be full of enlightened and scientific people.

It's just not the case. History says so.

In fact, so does Machiavelli.

Morality (by which I mean the voluntary restraint of behavior) is for chumps.

It is.

Why not cheat, lie or steal if it is to your advantage?  Biologists like Dawkins have an anwer: They claim that there is something in our evolution that rejects immoral behavior. They usually make their case in the reductio ad absurdum case of murder, but the idea of, say, cheating someone is more illustrative.

Getting away with murder is difficult in Western society, but not giving someone incorrect change or selling them junk when they thought they bought something good.

Refusing to cheat, when you can get away with it, is irrational. It is the sign of an unenlightened mind not to cheat. A rational, evolved person can -- and should -- overcome such biological constraints, if they exist.

I do not have familiarity with Dawkins' "earlier work". You may use terminology, I'd like to know what mathematics it uses.  I have been singularly unimpressed with "mathematical biology" myself.

My definition is not too narrow. That's what a "hard science" is. There are also "soft sciences" and, in a separate category, "social sciences".

The latter involves a different kind of scientific method in which if the data does not confirm the hypothesis, we reject the data until we find some that confirms the hypothesis.

As a mathematician myself, I endorse this.

I disagree.  That tweet is more of a cry for help than anything else.

Think about it: Of all of the profound arguments of the heights man can achieve if he just unshackles himself from religion and superstition, he picks...sex.

That's right, if you are an atheist, you too can aspire to be a rutting pig.

That tweet reminds me of a religious person who is eager to insert God or Jesus into even the most tangential and inappropriate circumstances.

It's an attempt at moral self-identification, to indicate to one's fellows that one is firm in the faith.

Maybe I'm wrong. It could be a situation where -- if he says it often enough -- he'll end up believing it, himself.

Not a hard science.  A hard science is basically defined as one that has a lot of math.  Ironically, that's not measurable, but the term "hard science" does have meaning.

Ernest Rutherford would have called zoology "stamp collecting":

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford,_1st_Baron_Rutherford_of_Nelson

Yep. Sigmund Freud, call your office.

I have to say that I greatly dislike when anyone, particularly right-leaning people, speak of "the Republican party" or "the RNC" as if it's a single entity. It conjures up notions that there is a dark conspiracy running the party.

Libertarians can get elected downticket quite easily, but it seems that they get greater joy at a Quixotic run at the presidency with unlikeable candidates and then pout about their ill treatment.

I'm really sorry that Romney wasn't perfect. I'm sorry he only talked about repealing Obamacare. He should have done more, like be more perfect. Or something.

Our system works by coalitions and if you are known as a group of unappeaseable malcontents, politicians will seek out others for their coalition, they won't waste their time to run after you after you take your ball and go home. Again.

You can continue to vote third party or stay home. And while your immortal soul will not be tainted with the sin of voting for an imperfect candidate, your principles will never be implemented.

But at least you won't have compromised. Anything.

Unexpected from the Des Moines Register, considering their recent dustup with Obama over their interview with him that had been off-the-record.

It was also a Putin ad.  Probably more successful.

From Foreign Policy. h/t Ace of Spades HQ.

I don't know the specifics of Texas law, but he's probably right. It falls under "electioneering" laws. Similar laws, if enforced, should have prevented the NBPP from doing their thing in Philadelphia in 2008.

Love the headline.  Very MSM.

The problem I see with foreign policy is that the Democrats and progressives are such dishonest actors that a coalition can't be formed.  Essentially, Democrats are against whatever the Republicans are currently for. So even having the discussion splits the Right.

In addition, conservatives are realists and, absent a general, overriding principle, are perfectly happy to consider foreign policy to be a case-by-case realpolitik situation.

Islamic extremism is interesting because there are principles at stake, very similar to the Communist threat.  Russia and China (despite being Communist) are much more routine threats.

The upper Midwest, from Western PA to Wisconsin is filled with people who love their unions, are fiercely loyal to them, will not hear a word against them and can't figure out why their kids can't find jobs nearby and they have to visit their grandkids in Texas.