The biology of your eyes

By -
I saw some contact lenses advertised that boasted that they were designed with that in mind.

An example of sciences trying to take credit for the things they study: our eyes have a nature, not a “biology.” Biology studies that nature.

Comments

  1. The Liquidationist8:43 PM

    Websters accepts that usage as a valid:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biology#examples

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah9:26 PM

    Dictionaries record common usage.
    I already *KNEW* that this was common usage.
    I am saying the common usage is a piece of propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BZ12:49 AM

      How is the common usage a piece of propaganda? I mean, it's not being used to further the interests of a group or purposefully spread misinformation. It's not like every time I say the word biology in a sentence, I'm trying to get someone to accept a very specific view point. Is the common usage of the word geology a piece of propaganda as well?

      Delete
  3. BZ1:06 AM

    Hi Gene,
    Do you read the comments before they're approved?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more