A new Science Perspective Paper writes about “reliable noise” which may not be the best description for a valid observation (Show me more…)

and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:2
Yesterday’s farewell sermon of Joachim Funk in Gröbenzell reminded me to the chapter that I once learned by heart (in Greek) and let me today go for some pictures of Kapuzinergasse in Munich, where the walls of St. Anton hold this inscription in big letters (Schmerzhafte Kapelle und Kapuzinerkloste, St. Anton).

From Slashdot today:

Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys. As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work. Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results. (Show me more…)

From a recent email that I received

In theory, science research laboratories are always peaceful places, where pure knowledge is being pursued. However, in recent years some tragic episodes of workplace violence have disturbed this tranquility. (Show me more…)

It is an always increasing problem: the EU doesn’t pay in time for your science. The European Ombudsman now invites observations from the public concerning his own-initiative inquiry into the problem of late payment by the European Commission [link].

Yes, again some thoughts about the limits of science and the horizon of religion, triggered by The Mermaid who writes about cause and effect and is itself

triggered in part by watching a video of a BBC television series called The Impressionists. It is a very fine dramatization of the 19th century French impressionism movement in art: Degas, Manet, Monet, Cezanne and others. At the same time these painters were working, realist painters were working as well (and there was conflict between the two groups, of course). So why did impressionism arise? Why is impressionist art so impressive (to some, at least)?

There are different ways to describe reality – and clearly the impressionist’s painters have developed their own way – neither better nor worse, just different.
But why are there so many materialistic scientists who want us to show that all religion is either caused by genes (VMAT2 – the “god gene”), by neuro-anatomy (Ramachandran’s god modul) by psychology (Freud’s “phantasy structure”) or just politics (“Opium des Volkes”). Why is it unacceptable that religion may be just the “impressionistic” way that may be even advantageous in some if not many situations?