News Feeds

Scientists analyzing a gravitational-wave signal have discovered that a neutron star and black hole spiraled together on an oval-shaped orbit just before merging. This unusual motion, detected in the event GW200105, contradicts the long-held expectation that such pairs settle into nearly perfect circles before collision. The eccentric orbit suggests the system likely formed in a chaotic stellar environment with strong gravitational interactions.

Toys powered by AI show a worrying lack of emotional understanding. But we need to understand the risks and benefits of the technology so the industry can be regulated, not outright banned

What happens when a solar superstorm hits Mars? Thanks to the European Space Agency’s Mars orbiters, we now know: glitching spacecraft and a supercharged upper atmosphere.

• Any group differences in outcomes can be traced to systemic racism.
• If systemic racism exists at all, it works against so-called privileged groups.
• Abortion is murder, period.
• The sanctity of human life is a made-up concept.
• Jews have a biblical right to Israel.
• Hitler was right about a few things.
• Masculinity is inherently toxic.
• If women ran the world, we would still be living in grass huts.
• The colonialists need to give back the land they stole.
• Indigenous people need to get over the fact that they were conquered.
• Providing sex is an obligation within a marriage.
• Any sexual coercion constitutes rape.

Do any of these statements resonate? Make you angry? Do some not even merit a response?

I can’t tell you exactly how I would respond to someone who defended Hitler, but I know what I would not do: stalk him on social media, contact his employer to try to get him fired, or ask my government representative to help criminalize such talk. 

Does this make me a free speech absolutist? Not quite. Like Robert Jensen, a professor emeritus at the University of Austin and prolific blogger, I suspect that most people who call themselves free speech absolutists don’t actually mean it. They wouldn’t countenance speech like “let’s go kill a few Germans this morning. Here, have a gun.” Instead, Jensen writes they’re prepared to “impose a high standard in evaluating any restriction on speech. In complex cases where there are conflicts concerning competing values, [they] will default to the most expansive space possible for speech.”

In other words, they’re free speech maximalists. A more contemporary and nuanced variant of absolutism, the maximalist position grants special status to free speech and puts the burden of proof on those who wish to curtail it. While accepting some restrictions in time, place, and manner, free speech maximalism defaults to freedom of content. It aligns with the litmus test developed by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, which holds that government should limit its regulation of speech to speech that dovetails with lawless action:

Let’s go kill a few Germans? Not kosher. 
The only good German is a dead one? Fair game.

Some pundits view this position as misguided. A 2025 Dispatch article titled “Is Free Speech Too Sacred?” laments America’s descent into an era of “free speech supramaximalism,” in which “not only must speech prevail over other regulation, but nearly everything is sooner or later described and defended as speech.” A New Statesman essay about Elon Musk, written a few months before he acquired Twitter (now X), decries Musk’s “maximalist conception of free speech usually adopted by teenage boys and libertarian men in their early 20s, before they realise its limitations and grow out of it.” The implication: free speech maximalism is an unserious pitstop on the way to more mature thinking. Only testosterone-soaked young men, drunk on their first taste of freedom, would spend more than a minute on such a naïve view.

This 69-year-old woman disagrees. I grew into my passion for free speech during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the pressure to conform in both word and deed reached an intensity I had never witnessed before. Any concerns about the labyrinthine lockdown rules elicited retorts like “moral degenerate” or “mouth-breathing Trumptard.” (Ask me how I know.)

Unexpectedly jolted into awareness of free speech principles, I began reading John Stuart Mill and Jean-Paul Sartre and writing essays about freedom of expression in the COVID era. One thing led to another, and in 2025 the newly minted Free Speech Union of Canada found a spot for me on its organizing committee. What most of us in the group shared, along with age spots and facial wrinkles, was a maximalist position on free speech. Perhaps we’re all immature. Or maybe we’ve lived long enough to understand exactly what we lose when free speech goes AWOL.

But but … critics sputter … what about hate speech? Free speech maximalism posits that you can’t regulate an inherently subjective concept. As Greg Lukianoff and Ricki Schlott note in their 2024 book The Cancelling of the American Mind, “as soon as you start legislating based on a concept as loosely defined and subjective as offense, you open the floodgates to every group and individual claim of offense.” This argument may well explain why Canada’s proposed Bill C9—the Combatting Hate Act—remains stalled after protracted parliamentary debate.

Is “you cannot change sex” hate speech or merely opinion? Is “you have a big Black butt” an offensive remark? It depends on who says it, how it’s said, and who hears it. One person may react to the big butt comment with reflexive outrage, while another may simply shrug. When said tenderly to a lover, the statement may elicit a full-throated laugh. Offense is in the eye of the beholder. 

Someone can tell you that the sky is green, or that women can’t think logically, or that Hitler was right about some things, and you allow the words to bounce off your emotional core. It’s a liberating habit of mind. 

A case in point: In 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register the name “The Slants” (an Asian rock band) because of its derogatory, or hateful, connotations. The bandleader sued and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed that “giving offense is a particular viewpoint” and a law restricting expression on the basis of viewpoint violated the First Amendment.

Here’s the thing: when you embrace viewpoint diversity as an ideal, you tend to get less offended about things. You may profoundly disagree with a statement, but it won’t cause you to puff up in outrage. Someone can tell you that the sky is green, or that women can’t think logically, or that Hitler was right about some things, and you allow the words to bounce off your emotional core. It’s a liberating habit of mind. 

And if you do get offended? Big whoop. You’ll survive. During a recent bus trip from Whistler to Vancouver my seatmate, a doctor, took it upon himself to share his candid opinions about women with me: they can’t take a raunchy joke, they make poor leaders, they’re responsible for cancel culture, and society would work better if they stayed home. Ugh. Seriously? But I survived. I wasn’t traumatized. Truth be told, I quite enjoyed our conversation. He listened as much as he spoke. I even found a few grains of value in his arguments, and perhaps a couple of my retorts gave him pause. And that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Humans of all stripes challenging and learning from each other. 

Here I must pause to express disappointment in my own sex. Women, I have found, value free speech less than men do, and studies corroborate my perception. In one survey, 71 percent of men said they gave priority to free speech over social cohesion, while 59 percent of women held the opposite view. An article reporting on the survey affirmed that “across decades, topics, and studies, women are more censorious than men.” Boo.

Even with carte blanche to express ourselves, it’s impossibly difficult for us humans to lay bare our true thoughts. Self-censorship is baked into our DNA. Free speech maximalism serves as a counterweight to this force. It allows us to rise, even if timidly, above the lead blanket of social conformity flung over us by the finger-wagging classes. By exposing little bits of our true selves, we shed light on the glorious contradictions in the human condition—a benefit that serves not just angry young men, but women with age spots and everyone else.

To those concerned about the dangers of loosening our tongues, I offer Greg Lukianoff’s bracing maxim: “You are not safer for knowing less about what people really think.” 

Rocky planets are found in abundance around M-type stars (red dwarfs), so finding another one doesn't always generate headlines. But an international team of astronomers say that one recent M-dwarf rocky planet found by TESS is especially noteworthy. This one can serve as a benchmark for comparative studies of this type of exoplanet and their at-risk atmospheres.

Astronomers say unusual readings from a star system 11,000 light-years away suggest that two of the planets circling the star crashed into each other, creating a huge, light-obscuring cloud of rocks and dust.

A neutron star merger is an extraordinary event. It features extremely powerful, chaotic magnetic fields that generate extremely energetic photons. Supercomputer simulations show that the extreme gamma-ray photons created in the mayhem can't even escape the chaos.

Body mass index (BMI) is used as a global standard for measuring health, but does it actually tell you anything about how healthy you are on an individual level? Carissa Wong explains the problems with this flawed tool

The story of a wildflower that adapted to a severe drought in California raises hopes that evolution will come to the rescue of species hit by climate change, but there are limits

So why should we expect interstellar comets like 3I/ATLAS and 'Oumuamua and even to some extent Borisov to be different-different?

Two popular quantum computing algorithms for problems in chemistry may have very limited use even as quantum hardware improves

The Free Press and CBS News (Bari Weiss is involved in both organizations) is hosting an ongoing series of “town hall” interviews and debates, the topic being “Things that matter.” The series is sponsored by the Bank of America.

A few weeks ago the series included a episode of interest to many of us, a debate between Steven Pinker and Ross Douthat on “Do we need God.” These gentlemen should need no introduction, save to add that this debate probably arose because of Douthat’s new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should be Religious, a book that he promoted widely (see some of my takes on it here). The video of that debate went online yesterday.

Here’s part of the website’s intro to the debate:

Today, nearly a third of Americans claim no religious affiliation, which would have been unimaginable a generation ago.

But the story of religion in the West is much more complicated than simple decline. In the past few years, we’ve entered what feels like a religious revival, or at least a leveling off in the decline of faith. Even as our society becomes more technologically advanced, many people are searching more intensely for meaning, purpose, and moral clarity. In other words, the question of faith hasn’t disappeared. If anything, it is even more urgent.

For years, intellectuals predicted that as religion receded, society would become calmer, more rational, and more scientific. Shed religious superstition, the theory went, and we would inherit a more enlightened public life. Instead, many societies haven’t become less fervent so much as differently fervent—driven by conspiracy, tribalism, and forms of moral conflict that often feel almost cosmic in intensity.

The premise of our Things That Matter debates, sponsored by Bank of America, is simple but essential. We want to revive the tradition that has long made the United States exceptional: our ability to argue openly across deep divides while still remaining part of the same civic community. Disagreement does not have to mean contempt. And since religion is one of the most politically charged topics in public life, it felt fitting to begin here.

Where does morality come from without God? Are our ideas of human dignity, moral obligation, and human rights ultimately grounded in a transcendent reality—or are they products of human reason alone? Are the apparent benefits of religion simply the community and rituals it nurtures, rather than the truth of its claims?

To explore these questions, we brought together two formidable public intellectuals: cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, author of Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.

You can hear the 57-minute debate by clicking below (I hope). It’s moderated by lawyer and commentator Sarah Isgur, who seems to be a secular Jew. It begins with summaries by Douthat and Pinker (about 4 minutes each), and then Isgur asks questions to Pinker and Douthat, questions that were clearly given to the debaters in advance (they have notes to answer them).

My take: Pinker wiped the floor with Douthat. Of course I’m biased, but Douthat’s arguments were lame, and he didn’t even dwell on the “science-y” arguments he made when touting his book (fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.). (Steve could have rebutted those, too.) Instead, Douthat says that “God self-evidently exists” and doesn’t rebut Pinker’s arguments showing the well-known negative correlation between religiosity of countries (or American states) and their well being. Douthat also makes quasi intelligent-design arguments, one of which is that our minds were created by God to help us understand the universe. I guess he doesn’t understand evolution.

Audience questions, chosen in advance, begin about 19 minutes in (the debaters apparently knew the selected audience questions, too). They’re interspersed with more questions from the moderator.  The best of her questions is at the end (55:15): “What is something that each of you would concede tonight—a point that the other made that you found compelling—that made you perhaps question some of your own positions on this?”

I would have preferred more of a slugfest, one in which Pinker and Douthat addressed each other, as they often do in Presidential debates (there’s a bit of that). This is all polite and respectful, but that detracts from what I like to see in a debate. But that’s due to the organizers, not the participants. And, sadly, there are no before-and-after votes. In my view, humanism won hands down over religion.

Fentanyl-related overdose deaths fell by nearly 30 per cent in the space of a year in the US, which could represent a significant turning point in the country's opioid addiction crisis

MIT physicists have observed the first clear evidence that quarks create a wake as they speed through quark-gluon plasma, confirming the plasma behaves like a liquid.

We’re starting to see just how exceptional our own solar system and its history is, as more exoplanets are discovered. A fourth exoplanet discovery in the LHS 1903 system made by ESA’s CHEOPS mission places a rocky world right where it shouldn’t be. This ‘inside-out system’ could challenge our current understanding of planetary formation.

Creationism, in all its various manifestations, is sophisticated pseudoscience. This makes it a great teaching tool to demonstrate the difference between legitimate science and science denial dressing up as a cheap imitation of science. Creationist arguments are a great example of motivated reasoning, providing copious examples of all the ways logic and argumentation can go awry. It has also been interesting to see creationist arguments (at the leading edge) “adapt” and “evolve” into more complex forms, while maintaining their core feature of denying evolution at all costs.

I am going to focus in this article on young Earth creationists, specifically Answers in Genesis, and something that is a persistent element of their position. Essentially they do not understand the concept of nested hierarchies. I have a strong sense that this is because they are highly motivated not to understand it, because if they did the entire structure of their YEC arguments would collapse.

This AiG article is a great example – Speciation is Not Evolution. The article is more than a bit galling, given that the author seeks to lecture scientists about the use of precise definitions. It begins by patronizingly explaining the humor in the famous “Who’s on First” skit (gee, thanks for that), then accuses scientists of not being precise with their definitions. This is, of course, the opposite of the truth. Good science endeavors to be maximally precise in terminology (hence the jargon of science), and it is creationists who habitually use vague and shifting definitions – such as their abuse of the word “information” and for that matter “evolution”.

We see this right in the title of the paper – speciation is not evolution – well, speciation is part of evolution. No one claims that by itself it encompasses evolution, but it’s a pretty critical part. They play this game frequently, by claiming, for example, that natural selection does not increase “information”. Correct, it non-randomly selects information. But mutations, duplications, and recombinations demonstrably increase information. They then argue that mutations only “degrade” information, and duplications only copy what is already there. Mutations change information in ways that can be neutral, positive, or negative, as judged by the context of the individual organism. Duplications absolutely increase the amount of information (again, what definition of information are they even using), allowing for one copy to maintain its original function while the new copy can mutate into new functions.

But let’s get to the core argument of this article, that speciation can occur within “kinds” but cannot turn one kind into another. In other words, dogs can evolve into new species of dogs, but a dog can never evolve into a cat. “Evolutionists”, they argue, don’t understand this difference, and so confuse speciation within a kind to “macroevolution” from one kind to another. Meanwhile, they do not have an operational precise definition of what a “kind” is. The word comes from the Bible (God created creatures each according to their own kind) and is not a scientific concept. The author states that a kind roughly correlates to a family level taxonomically. But that doesn’t help. A taxonomical “family” is also not a precise thing. It is simply a categorization convention, and varies tremendously across the tree of life. The same is true of macroevolution – this is not a scientific concept and has no operational definition.

The problem with both of these concepts – kind and macroevolution – is that they suffer from a fatal demarcation problem. There are lots of demarcation problems in science, anytime we are trying to categorize a messy continuum of nature. What’s a planet, or species, or continent? The difference is, the YEC argument is contingent on there being a sharp demarcation – evolution can proceed to this amount, but no further. Evolution can account for this degree of change, but no further. The problem is, they never state any reason, based on any valid principles, as to why. They simply assert that kinds are inviolate.

But at the core of their claims is a complete misunderstanding of what evolutionary science actually claims. Ironically, when they say that dogs can only evolve into more dogs, and never into cats – they are correct. Evolutionary scientists agree with this statement, especially if you take a cladistic approach to taxonomy. By definition a clade is one species and all of its descendants. This is why it is cladistically correct to say that people are fish. Once the eukaryotic clade evolved, everything that descends from it are still eukaryotes. So humans are eukaryotes, and animals, vertebrates, fish, lobe-finned fish, reptiles, mammals, and primates. It is correct, for example, to say that all descendants of fish are still fish, but you have to count humans as fish. What you cannot ever do is go back up the cladistic tree. You cannot undo evolution. You also cannot make a lateral move to another unrelated clade. So an animal cannot evolve into a plant.

The YEC misunderstanding of this concept renders all of their arguments as to why evolutionary scientists are wrong into strawman arguments. No one ever said a dog can evolve into a cat – in fact scientists say this is impossible. It is not part of evolutionary thinking.

What creationist do is grossly underestimate how much change can occur within a clade, because they are stuck on the concept of “kinds”. Functionally what is a kind? It’s one of those things that you vaguely sense. You know it when you see it. Everyone knows what dinosaurs look like – they have a dinosaurish vibe. This is why they falsely argue that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. Actually, it is more correct to simply say that birds are dinosaurs – they are a subclade within the dinosaur clade. Birds are also reptiles, because dinosaurs are a subclade within reptiles, which are a subclade within fish, etc. It’s nested hierarchies all the way down. But birds look like a different kind than dinosaurs, so this violates their vague sense of what a kind is. They then mock this idea by analogizing it to a dog evolving into a cat – this this is a false analogy. Dogs and cats are different subclades of mammals, and you cannot evolve from one clade into another, only into subclades within your existing clade.

Stephen J. Gould also discussed this idea and zoomed in on an important concept that is highly misunderstood. Over evolutionary time we expect that disparity (not diversity, the amount of differences, but disparity, the degree of difference) decreases. This seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense once you fully internalize the concept of nested hierarchies. Multicellular life achieved maximal morphological disparity soon after the Cambrian explosion, and from that point forward we only see variations of the various body plan themes. Over evolutionary time the nested hierarchy structure of the tree of life means that we see variations on progressively constrained themes. Evolution is constrained by its history, so the more evolutionary history a lineage has, the more constrained its future evolution. If we look at the entire history of evolution, we see this increasing constraint play out as decreasing disparity. At most disparity can stay the same, but extinction is like a ratchet slowly decreasing disparity.

To take an extreme example used by Gould to illustrate this, imagine a mass extinction where the only surviving land vertebrates are dogs. Eventually those dogs will adapt and fill all the empty niches – you will have herbivore dogs, grazing dogs, dogs living in trees, predator dogs, and more. But they will all be variations on dogs. A dog will not evolve into a giraffe, but it may evolve into a giraffe-like dog, while still retaining dog features. This is also why using modern extant examples (a dog evolving into a cat) also makes no sense. The dog clade is evolutionarily constrained to forever be dogs, even though that can include a lot of diversity. But if you go back in time a few hundred million years, you can have a mammal that is less evolutionarily constrained that evolved into both cats and dogs.

We can also ask the question – what does the evidence show? Above is the picture that AiG uses to illustrate its speciation within clades. The depiction of each clade is conceptually not bad (I don’t think it was meant to be literally accurate), but it artificially stops at an arbitrary line of “kinds”. Does the evidence support this view? What would we expect to see if each kind were created unto itself and separate from all other kinds? What would we expect to see if these nested hierarchies go all the way back to the beginning of life? You can fill a book reviewing the actual evidence, but let me give a quick summary.

If the YEC schematic is correct, then we would expect to see discrete clades that can be cleanly separated – morphologically, genetically, physiologically and biochemically. If the evolution schematic is correct then we would not expect any clean separation, but a continuum along all these features leading back as far as the evidence goes. The bottom line is that the evidence is a home run for the evolutionary prediction. Creationists deal with this devastating fact in a couple of ways. First, they often simply deny the evidence, saying things like “there are no transitional fossils”. They support this claim by mischaracterizing the evidence, ignoring evidence, and also by playing loose with the definition of “transitional”.

They also make the claim that any similarities between kinds is due to each kind having the same creator. Why would the creator reinvent the wheel with each kind, of course he just used the same solutions over and over again. But this argument only goes so far. There are numerous connections between clades that go far beyond utility, such as viral inclusions. The genetic material from a virus can get stuck in the genome of a creature, and then persist down throughout its clade. These are non-functional bits of viral residue in the genome, and they provide a map of nested hierarchies which obey clades, but violate any notion of kinds.

We also can look at the fossil record temporally. In the YEC model, we should see all clades appearing at the same time (creation), then going through a simultaneous bottleneck (the flood) followed by speciation into our current extant species. That is not what we see – not even close. Some will say – what about the Cambrian, that is the sudden appearance of all kinds. Um, no. There are no birds, dogs, triceratops, horses, or humans in the Cambrian. All the family-levelish kinds they say exist were not in the Cambrian fauna. The Cambrian explosion resulted mainly in the multicellular phyla (basic body plans), including some that are now extinct. If they claimed that kinds were phyla and that they were created 500 million years ago, they would have a stronger case. But that is not what they say. Over time we then see increasing diversity within clades, with new subclades evolving and appearing over evolutionary time. We basically see exactly what we would predict if all life has a common ancestor, and not what we would expect to see if life were divided into family level kinds created all at the same time.

Creationists cannot engage with what evolutionary scientists actually claim, so they have to invent ridiculous straw men to attack. They use loose and shifting definitions, and then have the gall to falsely accuse scientists of doing that. They can’t explain the evidence, so that have to ignore and distort it beyond all recognition.

And to clarify my position, in case you are new to this blog, I am not against belief in God and essentially don’t care what anyone believes when it comes to metaphysical questions. But science follows methodological naturalism, and if you follow the methods of science there is only one logical, evidence-based, and scientific answer to the question of the origin of species. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that all life is descended from a common ancestor in a nested hierarchy of relationships.

The post Creationists Don’t Understand Nested Hierarchies first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Three years ago, a detector sitting on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea recorded a single subatomic particle carrying more energy than anything of its kind ever seen before. Where it came from has been a mystery ever since. Now, scientists working with the KM3NeT detector off the coast of Sicily think they may have found the culprit, a population of blazars, some of the most violent objects in the universe, each one powered by a supermassive black hole firing a jet of plasma directly toward Earth.

For 45 years, astronomers believed that stars like our Sun would eventually flip their rotation pattern as they aged with the poles speeding up and the equator slowing down. It was one of those theoretical predictions that seemed rock solid, written into textbooks and built into stellar models. Now, researchers at Nagoya University in Japan have run the most powerful simulations of stellar interiors ever attempted, and the theory has collapsed. Stars like the Sun, it turns out, seem to keep the same rotation pattern for their entire lives.

“Follow the water” has been a guiding mantra of astrobiology, and even space exploration more generally for decades. If you want to find life, it makes sense to look for the universal solvent that almost all types of life on Earth use. But what if life doesn’t actually need water to live or even evolve? A recent paper, available in pre-print on arXiv by researchers at MIT, including Dr. Sara Seager, and the University of Cardiff, proposes an alternative to water as the basis for life - ionic liquids (ILs) and deep eutectic solvents (DES). These liquids could allow life to exist in environments we had once thought were far too hot, too cold, or too barren to support life, and could dramatically change our search for it throughout the cosmos.

Star Nathan Fillion is stoking rumours that cult western-in-space television series Firefly could be rebooted. Emily H. Wilson realises she is being toyed with – but is still praying for its return