*That* assertion is pretty clearly wrong. I make *exactly* the same qualification in the paragraph immediately preceding the one they cite.

I then explicitly say that the qualifications are the same in the footnote attached to said sentence!

What's more notable is their assertion that I qualify my claim that models provide evidence in a way that I don't qualify the claim that experiments do (the image is from page 46 of their paper).

Anyone who is going to be at the Eastern: Jamee, Mathias, and I will be talking climate change, astronomy, robustness, and the work of the late George E. Smith on Thursday morning.

Ok, this is real Simpsons rabbit hole stuff, but despite what we all remember, the joke in the pictured segment *is on the adults*.

The kids are just straight-up describing Power Rangers, a show that had existed for 3 years before the episode aired.

Really enjoying @bweatherson.bsky.social's new book, but like a lot of philosophy these days it relies heavily on some pretty unrealistic cases.

I mean, a Sox fan who can't remember what year the curse was broken?

My research projects if I didn't have to devote so much mental energy to job applications:

I don't know if anyone who follows me on here will appreciate this meme but I was compelled to make it.

Inspired by a forum post on influential works of philosophy, I asked GPT about major philosophical works of the 21st century.

The results might surprise you!