News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…
Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…
The discussion here assumes an institutional context where returning to supervised in-person assessment is at least theoretically feasible, a reasonable…
Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…
Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.
I see this question as a bit naïve. There is metadata on every document created by a modern word processor…
There’s a simple way to test. Open a pre-2022 essay and copy-and-paste it into a new file.
I'd be curious to hear from philosophers of biology and other biologically-informed readers about this New Yorker piece. Accurate? Misleading? Links to better or other discussions of epigenetics accessible to non-biologists welcome.
P.Z. Myers has a number of posts on epigenetics: A lengthy introduction is at
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/22/epigenetics/
A less long introduction with a discussion of typical misconceptions is at
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/11/18/the-magical-world-of-epigenetics/
Whether he is right, though, I cannot say.
Massimo Pigliucci (a biologist and philosopher) has commented on this many times. He rules "misleading".
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/The_Evolution_of_Evolutionary_Theory
I read the article and it pretty much squared with what I remember from university biology: DNA methylation and histone modification control gene expression and these signals can be heritable but do not violate the Central Dogma in the way that neo-Lamarckism would allow. Mukherjee is a practicing physician, and the article warns against neo-Lamarckism. So everything seems fair here.
Another perspective, just out in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/science/article/pii/S1369848616300206
Apologies; here's the working link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848616300206
Here's an interesting piece by Nautilus on epigenetics: http://nautil.us/blog/epigenetics-has-become-dangerously-fashionable
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply to Sebastian Lutz Cancel reply