In the past I have been vindictively and falsely accused by the likes of PZ Myers of being a Creationist. He and other High Inquisitors of the Church of the Horsemen (also known as the Church Fathers of Freethought Blogs) are pretty much like McCarthyites who fear Communists under their beds. They stand ready even now to find the dirty Creaties. People within the “skeptic” community acted as Inquisitors in the name of Holy Science, ready to strike lest anyone harbor an heretical thought or two on the nature of Darwinism as currently understood and the limits of what the sciences can currently tell us. Or lest anyone question whether we’ve got the right paradigm for future investigation of certain important matters.
It did not matter that I was an atheist at the time, it did not matter that I repeatedly said I thought Creationism was silly and Intelligent Design was not science. It did no good–the repetitions and howls that I was a Creationist and anti-Science just got louder and more vicious. They even made up a permanent entry in me for it in something called “The Encyclopedia of American Loons” claiming, falsely, that I had suggested teaching Creationism or Intelligent design in the schools was a “good idea.”
It was a cyber-mobbing and pure cyberbullying. And my first taste of just how vicious the supposed “rationalist” community could be. These people called themselves sceptics but mostly they were anti-intellectual bullies who also obviously, in many cases, could demonstrate no coherent understanding of the scientific method or even notice how often their own claims could not be falsified.
My crime? It was for suggesting that if you fight the Creationists too hard, you’ll actually make them more powerful. I argued that it would be much better to note that they were and are a religious fringe, but if you look like bullies by dragging them into court you’ll just make people sympathetic. An editorial writer at no less than Science (the most prestigious science journal in the world) wrote a near-identical opinion, but even my citing him did not matter: I was a disgusting nutbag who wanted Creationism in the schools. No amount of evidence mattered: I was guilty as charged.
Now you have a right to say I was wrong, although I would suggest that in the decade since I’ve been proven at least somewhat correct in that prediction; scientists are increasingly being seen as dogmatic bullies who can’t prove their own shit, which certain “rationalists” respond to by blaming innocent religious folk who were never anti-science in the first place. Or looking around for some other religious idea that offends them rather than look critically at their own behavior.
I do owe these dogmatic, bullying anti-Creationist zealots a debt of gratitude though. It led me to begin to wonder why I’d ever thought atheists were more rational or intelligent or decent than anyone else. And it led me ultimately to asking if my own atheism made sense.
Anyway, back then one of the Atheist Inquisitors got particularly incensed and started up on me again when I noted how much I thought of the work of Lynn Margulis and how the problem with corruption in peer review funding was a serious problem, along with bad textbooks and phony research getting published more and more. I was immediately ridiculed for mentioning the “crazy cat lady” Lynn Margulis (apparently some in the Richard Dawkins Fan Club like to call her that). Her crime? She liked the “Gaia” metaphor for how gasses operate and how microbial life so strongly influence that.
(Ask Exoplanet Astronomers if Lynn Margulis was nuts. Go on try it. They might not even have jobs without her.)
But no, as one of her friends made it plain in her son’s wonderful book of remnances, “Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel” she was an atheist, an unwavering materialist to the end.
In what is probably her most important book, “Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species,” she examines Darwin’s original treatise at length, but finds him wanting on some big questions. But she also reveals her own theological views very well:
—[begin quotation here]—
Probably more bought the book than read it. After a century of exegesis by savants and much translation into common language, the authorities have agreed that Darwin’s insights were many and valuable. The book itself, however, is laced with hesitancies, contradictions, and possible prevarication. Darwin made it clear that Man, like all live beings, survived to the present preceded by an immense and daunting history. No God had made either Man or tomato. Nor had any other form of life been created separately in seven or fewer days. Yet Darwin, perhaps mainly for reasons of political acumen, did reserve the possibility that God had begun life in the first place.
Surprisingly, when all was said and done about “grandeur in this view of life” (one of Darwin’s last phrases in the great book), it was abundantly clear that in 500 pages of closely spaced type the title question–on the origin of species–had been entirely circumvented–abandoned, ignored, or coyly forgotten. As the Australian biologist George Miklos so appropriately put it:
The ‘struggle for existence’ has been accepted uncritically for generations by evolutionary biologists with the Origins of Species quoted like so much Holy Writ, yet the origin of species was precisely what Darwin’s book was not about.
For those who skimmed the book, those who read his myriad other works, and those who simply learned about the book’s contents from others, Charles Darwin ultimately established, to the satisfaction of his scientific contemporaries and followers, a major idea entirely valid in our day. All species of life did descend from related predecessors. All life, whether or not made by a deity in the very beginning, is connected back through time to preexisting, proximally similar life forms. Today, with our better understanding of cosmic evolution and the chemistry of life’s origins, any requirement for a deity can be pushed back still further, to the mysterious origins of the cosmos in the Big Bang.
—[end quotation here]—
Actually as a fan of Margulis I can’t fail to note how she so frequently goes out her way to bash theists, often in a very catty way; some of her remarks in one of her other books about the great biologist Gregor Mendel were pure MeanGirl bullying, or would be seen as such if Mendel were alive. Mendel was a monk you see so he must have harbored heretical thoughts not approved by Science.
No, she wasn’t a Creationist you dolts. She just thinks Selfish Gene is ludicrously reductionist and can’t account for most of what we see in life’s diversity, and she’s got a way better hypothesis for how it all works. Now she might be right or wrong–I happen to suspect she’s right–but if you’re going to argue with me about this lady argue about her work on its merits not because you think she might be a Heretic to Lord Science.
Now, in the years since I was first dogpiled by the Rabid Hateful Atheist Club, I’ve grown wiser. And I wish I could talk to Lynn, and explain to her how very primitive and reductionist her own ideas of God are. The God spoken of by Plato, Aristotle, and in the Septuagint can’t be contained in such ridiculously primitive reductionist formulas. Sorry, we are not one jot or tittle closer to answering the arguments made by the ancients of the necessity of a noncontingent Creator today than we were 2000 years ago.
Creationism was always for weak-minded theists–and weak-minded atheists tend to think exactly like them, in my experience.
Anyway, Lynn Margulis: one of the most important scientists of this century. She’ll be remembered for her contributions to science long after everybody’s forgotten the irrelevant Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins, the king of the Neo-Darwinist bullies.
Check out “Acquiring Genomes.” It’s fucking brilliant. And you can verify most of what she says with an ordinary microscope if you really want to. How’s that for offering evidence?
*Update*
By the way, trusting institutional Science? Not that wise a thing to do these days. And no, don’t blame me. I’ve been complaining about this problem for a decade and been called a conspiracy theorist and a crackpot for saying it.
This is an early draft presentation which will hopefully evolve over time. Others are invited to comment and offer to contribute/collaborate. The author is openly seeking collaboration to flesh this out further and make it more robust, fill in gaps, add information, and challenge the model.
In the early 20th Century Korbinian Brodmann defined regions of the cerebral cortext by their apparent function. Anatomists and others have long been frustrated by the Brodmann areas and some even deprecate them because anatomists have difficulty distinguishing them on dissection and because we know that one region of the brain can take over functions of another part of the brain via means such as neuroplasticity. However the Brodmann regions stubbornly persist in showing up because it remains that when you damage these specific regions, the functionality associated with them becomes impaired.
(Illustration found in Google Images and used under Fair Use but may be replaced later.)
Furthermore, what we have also discovered in recent years is that by using EEG technology to focus on brainwave emissions from a single Brodmann region, we can read the frequency(ies) that a dicrete Brodmann region emits on EEG, and, using biofeedback to monitor that region in real time and train that frequency emitting from that particular Brodmann region towards a somewhat arbitrarily-established mean or median from EEG data collected from thousands of putatively “normal” brains, clinical practice shows that the functions associated with that region improve in the individual. The following is redacted from a Quantitative EEG prescription from an American neurologist for a patient who agreed to have it appear in this presentation:
Clinical experience which can be attested to by neurofeedback practitioners globally, as well as numerous studies on neurofeedback found in sources such as Medline/Pubmed, shows overwhelmingly that techniques such as this are effective, and tend to be far more effective than drugs or psychotherapy alone, although it is agreed that psychotherapy and sometimes drug interventions are absolutely advisable in conjunction with this form of therapy; this technology does not render obsolete all other forms of psychiatric/psychological treatment irrelevant. It is generally agreed that to be most effective, the treatment will be most effective in conjunction with some form of cognitive therapy whether it be Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or other clinically proven talk therapies.
It is generally agreed in the literature and among practitioners that the biofeedback training using EEG data is creating new neurons and neuron paths in the subject’s brain, i.e. neuroplasticity, probably including Hebbian learning.
Furthermore, clinically, the results are generally agreed to be permanent unless insults to the body post-treatment result in new dysfunction or returning to previous dysfunctional patterns. Essentially, the neurofeedback treatment is effectively a permanent cure for what it purports to treat, unless something happens to undo the cure.
The fact that the new neuron pathways are being established is in no way in dispute by this author. However, neuroplasticity and Hebbian learning have long seemed insufficient/incomplete to this author. Having consulted multiple practitioners and surveyed much of the literature, the author can find no explanation that is fully satisfying as to why this long-term clinical effect is seen from the simple act of modifying the EEG signal in a Brodmann region. Why such dramatic results from a simple frequency change?
The author makes the rather audacious suggestion that “brain waves” are in fact carrier waves for signaling within the brain and indeed the entire nervous system. Those looking to individual neurons firing are missing a much broader picture, seeing the trees not the forest: the human brain almost certainly does not operate “like a computer” in more than crude ways, but the human brain most definitely operates along principles similar to computer networks, although in a more sophisticated fashion than is usually the case in modern computer networks.
The author proposes that each Brodmann region is not just a “semi-autonomous” (as is generally agreed by most sources) but is in a very real sense already capable of all the functionality of the larger brain, albeit in smaller scale. Each Brodmann region is actually transmitting streaming data 24 hours a day, non-stop, broadcasting its own needs and responses to other Brodmann regions to meet their needs. Different segments of the brain (and nervous system) will be gated off from each other, so not all Brodmann regions can hear each other, but Brodmann areas will be logically grouped by related function so they may “hear” each other and cooperate with each other directly.
Within computer networks there is a concept of “logical” versus “physical” topology. Physical topology can take almost any form so long as the logical topology is preserved. A lesson on computer networking will help us understand, even as we emphasize the author does not propose the brain works exactly “like a computer.”
Early computer networking technicians and engineers noted a realty of how electricity behaves when sent down wires. In short summary, electricity will flow everywhere on a wire until it finds resistance. So for example, as in this simple illustration:
To be clear this is not a lesson in electricity, but to the concept of how it flows: if you put an electrical charge on one end of a copper wire, the electricity immediately flows to the other end. Ground the wire or otherwise put a source of resistance on the end, and the electricity flows through.
Furthermore, absent something to stop it (resistors, gates, etc.) electricity will flow through every bit of copper that goes to ground; if you keep adding wires, no matter how chaotic the pattern of wiring, the electricity will hit every part of the wire indiscriminately:
NB: It is acknowledged for any electrical engineers reading that these are very simplified descriptions of electrical flow from their point of reference. There will also be those who have studied individual neuron function to begin objecting here that this is a crude analogy of how sophisticated neurons really interact. So noted: the above is not a crude drawing of a neuron or a lengthy lesson on electricity. It could, however, be a drawing of how millions of neurons are strung together to make a communcations line. More on that proposal later.
Returning to our simplified explanation, when you send a signal down a wire, it goes everywhere on that wire unless something stops it from doing so. It is the natural way electricity flows, and is thus the way signals on that electrical current flows.
In designing the classic, early form of Ethernet now popular through the world, engineers took advantage of this tendency of a signal to go everywhere to their advantage in designing a copper wire with computer (and printer and other) nodes on the wire, in this classic formulation:
(Illustration found in Google Images and used under Fair Use but may be replaced later.)
Note that this method of Ethernet communications is now fairly rare in the real world as systems using hubs, switches, and so on came along. Nevertheless, examine this model: clearly, if one computer sends a signal down the copper wire, it will go to every single part of the wire and every node on the wire. (Resistor terminators are used on the ends to simply stop the signal. Once again, we ask that electrical engineers who wish to go into the finer points of this operation resist the urge to do so. We are explaining fundamental concepts here.)
Ethernet has evolved to a more complex system involving hubs, switches, routers, signal amplifiers, and more. With increasing complexity, engineers have had to move from describing physical topologies (the literal and exact way each and every node, wire, and other piece of equipment is placed) to describing what are known as logical topologies: how the network is logically laid out regardless of where exactly its wires and various nodes are. For example, a look at the logical topology of a very large and sophisticated computer network is still easy to understand no matter how complex and snarled the actual wires and computers are, as such:
(Illustration found in Google Images and used under Fair Use but may be replaced later.)
Odds are if you are reading this presentation you may be in an office whose wiring is exactly described by this logical topology, even though that office might in fact have thousands of computers so arranged, and the actual physical location of wires, hubs, routers, computers may seem completely chaotic and to in no way resemble this simple, clean, logical topology. But this logical topology allows us to understand instantly the operation of the otherwise bewildering mass of boxes and wires—logically, no matter how much you move equipment and wires around, so long as the connections are properly maintained, communications are smooth and uninterrupted.
To emphasize again the point that we are not attempting to draw a direct analogy to computers and the brain, we also note that similar logical topologies describe vast networks of electrical power generation and transmission:
(Illustration found in Google Images and used under Fair Use but may be replaced later.)
Multiple power plants and millions of kilometers of wires and millions of homes, offices, and other facilities using electricity can be described and understood using the above logical topology.
We propose that the brain, and cognitive function may also be described by a logical topology known as a gated mesh topology:
Multiple reputable sources in contact with the author have agreed that It is generally accepted that there are 27 Brodmann regions associated with specific cognitive functions such as hearing, vision, language decoding, language production, and so on, with other Brodmann regions used by other functions in the brain. This presentation accepts these assertions uncritically for the purposes of illustration and this claim as to how many Brodmanns are involved in any particular function is beyond the scope of this presentation. In any case we will not attempt to draw 27 nodes or any other specific number. Rather, this conceptual diagram shows a mesh topology with individual Brodmann nodes connected by multiple reduntant wiring that intersects. Essentially, when one Brodmann puts out a signal, all other Brodmanns in its region can detect and respond to that signal at any time in an almost completely ad hoc fashion. The nodes semi-autonomously decide, individually, what to listen and respond to, and the other nodes decide, individually, which responses to listen to and how to respond to them, in a never-ending systemic cycle. Within any given segmented part of the brain, such as what we think of as the “higher brain” that does cognitive function, each Brodmann will be clearly receiving all signals from the others in that region.
Furthermore, it is proposed that since the regions are mostly autonomous, deciding individually both what to send to the rest of the network and what to not-send, what to respond to and what not to respond to, each is essentially intelligent in its own right, and decisions for the entire region are made by consensus and not any particularly complex sorting algorithm. The Brodmann nodes talk to each other very much in the way that colonies of groundhogs, ants, and such “talk” to each other; wasps may use pheromones and complex dances, groundhogs may communicate mostly by chirps and grunds and squeals, but all are capable of “hearing” each other simultaneously while clustered together and can decide either as individuals or in groups how to behave; the Brodmann communications strategies with each other will mirror natural organic communications schemes found in pack and hive species.
Furthermore, every collection or cluster of associated Brodmann areas will have a gate or set of gates to send and receive communications from other regions of the brain and nervous system as follows:
The “cloud” in this formulation is the entire rest of the nervous system.
Indeed, we note here that it seems likely that the entire human nervous system operates on these principles, though in the human “higher” brain the complex parts involved in higher cognition are just a bigger collection of Brodmanns grouped together in this case for cognition, while other much smaller network clusters may be involved in other functions such as heart and lung function, walking, using hands, keeping balance, dealing with fight/flight/freeze responses for the system as a whole, and so on.
Those educated in neuron anatomy may now be objecting strongly that the dendrites, axons, Ranvier nodes, and synapses do not appear to work like this. We suggest our friends with this mentality are zooming too far in to the wiring. We propose that neurons are there to modulate the signals flowing through them in chains; essentially the “wires” to the nodes in this configuration may be millions or billions of neurons long. Individual firing of neurons is not the key to understanding, it is their collective retransmission of signals that produces cognitive processing within the Brodmann areas and in the “wires” logically connecting these areas together. Indeed individual synapses may be involved modulation or other changes to the signal as it passes through neuron chains, but we propose that generally neurons in transmission lines will faithfully pass on whatever signal they receive down the line; they do not need to involve themselves in intricate manipulation of the signal if their assigned role as neurons is to form a chain to pass signals. Individual neurons within a Brodmann region are almost certainly involved in far more complex activity than is within the scope of our exploration here. Here we assume Brodmann regions are vast collections of billions of neurons aligned for one function, with neurons also forming chains of wires whose main job is merely to pass data on.
We note that this description obviates the need for a central controller for any function; decisions are arrived at by group consensus, either in so-called higher cognition and possibly in every other functional region of the brain and nervous system as well.
In reality, it is frequently objected that it is nearly impossible to distinguish where one Brodmann area begins and another ends. The actual physical layout/topology of various nodes on the network may look chaotic, such as this:
As in an ever-growing and changing Ethernet network, lines may be laid over time to add more bandwidth, ad-hoc connections between two busily communicating nodes may be run, and indeed, some Brodmann regions may (and almost certainly do) begin merging physically. But within the functioning of the network, the logic will remain (mostly) logically pristine:
….no matter how snarled, random, and spaghetti-like the Brodmann areas may become internally, and no matter how haphazard the physical wiring between regions may appear to become, logically they will continue to communicate on these patterns at all times.
Within this model we also propose a few other items which are not necessarily central to this logical configuration, but which would match with it well:
1) Within at least “higher” function or what we call “consciousness”, every Brodmann area “thinks.” Auditory brodmann regions both process audio information and construct a logical language within themselves to process logical thoughts in an auditory form. Visual Brodmann areas will process logic visually. Odd as it sounds, smell and taste Brodmanns may well process logic using smell and taste logic. We believe this is speculation but not unreasonable speculation.
2) A much more wild guess, but possibly worth entertaining by those trying to decode signaling in brain waves: the mind and other parts of the body seem to consistently use patterns of 2 or 3. I propose that information may be passed or stored in a sort of organic binary and/or trinary, with no concept of 0 or negative numbers. If so, we would predict data storage, logic, and even transmission to all be based on 2, 3, a merging of both for a base of 5, and otherwise a general use of either adding numbers or exponents of numbers. We cannot prove this, but those attempting to decode brain information may find this suggestion a useful starting point, what computer hackers term a “WAG,” to start looking for how information may be decoded.
We finally note that regardless of the guesswork of the previous numbered items, this model also answers the question: why does functionality improve when you change the signal frequency used by individual Brodmann areas? Because the Brodmann areas may now communicate to each other in improved, undistorted fashion, in fundamentally the same way that glasses can fix astigmatism, nearsightedness, etc., or that pixellation and other transmission issues in a television signal can be cleared by fixing the frequency and running new lines. The Brodmanns are communicating better now, and this contributes substantially to the improved function found in clinical experience.
Note: This presentation is a draft and is part of a larger GPL v3 licensed project for open source neurofeedback. It is not a scientific paper, it requires more development and considerably more references. Nevertheless conceptually we have not seen these proposals in the literature, and we believe these present plausible, falsifiable hypotheses which also lead to obvious suggestions for further research, and is worth sharing with those intending further research on brain waves and possibly other brain functions. Many illustrations were taken from Google image search and are uncredited and will need replacing and are otherwise used under fair use. Nevertheless we feel the implications are so strong we want people to see this and give their feedback.
*update*: An informal presentation given to my friend Catreece MacLeod on this same subject:
By the way, for whatever it’s worth, everything described here has happened to me, and I’ve only ever published one Science Fiction story, many years ago. There are people on the internet who act exactly like this, then when we speak of recognizing them, as he does here, we’re called paranoid. Um, wut?
If the attackers get called on it, or busted, they delete the embarrassing stuff, run away, then come back somewhere else, often under a different name, trying to stick narrative into whole new conversations. I’ve got a couple of guys who are so persistent at it, posting under dozens of pseudonyms, whenever my name shows up anywhere that I’m pretty sure they’ve got me on Google alerts.
If you are talking about more recent times, and the number of people like that, plug my name into your search engine for the last week. Now we are in the hundreds, if not thousands. Forums, blog comments, all over FB, and this time it is racist, sexist, blah blah blah… I wish they would mix the narrative up a little and accuse me of something interesting.
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
It’s funny how every time I link an article like this from a scientific publication, and note that the peer review system as currently constructed has too many opportunities for corruption, I’m told that I’m a conspiracy theorist. Whatever. I have had multiple working scientists (and retired scientists) tell me this. Yet apparently I’m wrong to bring it up. Oh well.
Remember, the SPLC is a hate group that incites fanaticism and murder and oppposes civil and human rights in their desire to raise more cash for the wealthy cronies who run their organization.
This piece, When Nerds Collide by Meredith L. Patterson, is easily the best explanation of what’s been going on with nerds that I’ve ever read, and I’ve been watching this slow erosion of what we created and the growing attack on who we are since the early 2000s; it started slow, but like all exponential growth, it tends to look slow at first, but then suddenly seems like it’s exploding around you.
The question is, what’s next? I guess human nature doesn’t change much, and the ultimate issue is that, as weirdos, we will always be by-definition weird and thus shunned. Yet it would seem that most human progress relies heavily on weirdos for innovation. Can the norms continue to innovate on their own? Some can, but I think most can’t. Yet we can hardly threaten them to leave us alone or we’ll stop helping them; they won’t listen or believe anyway.
Since I have for some time now believed our Constitution is functionally broken, with just about every exploitable part of the thing exploited, I think it’s a fine idea. On the other hand, this group appears to only be using their call to appeal to conservatives and conservative issues (and by “conservative” I mean Conservative in the modern American political context, not necessarily what would classically be called conservative). Doubtless, however, if they did manage this, liberals too would have their chance to give input, and would hopefully be concentrating on restoration of due process rights, limitation of corporate power and hegemony, and other items that most concern them.
I have to say that on the whole I support the effort, but I’m pessimistic at this point; the most politically active among us are now so utterly locked in the delusional “left vs. right” mold that they will instinctively reject this out of fear of what “conservatives” might do or what “liberals” might do, and won’t even think about the fact that any proposed alteration or rewriting of the Constitution would not only involve extensive debate, but would also have to be ratified, with an enormous amount of time for everyone in the country to think about what was proposed.
Meanwhile, the average citizen, who is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, neither a “Conservative” or a “Liberal” in the way they say these things among the intelligentsia, has a hard time giving a damn about any of it. So we’re locked between “liberals” vs. “conservatives” vs. everybody who no longer gives a damn.
I still vote in every election, and I still vote not just bipartisan but for a mix of third party candidates just to send a message. I’m glad I do, as I know I still have some influence; I helped get a corrupt judge off the bench near where I live for example. But I know I’m in a minority in believing I can make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
As a country, we have come to mistrust and fear not just our government, but each other, so much so that we’re terrified of even trying to alter our basic system of government–even though the Constitution itself was designed to enable us to do that very thing any time we want to.
I remember how much grief I used to get for saying the PC was slowly disappearing. I started saying that about 10 years ago. Whenever I said this I was accused of saying the PC was going to “die.” No. What I said was it would slowly disappear from most people’s lives because they wouldn’t need one, and it would eventually turn back into what it was originally: a tool and/or toy for engineers, scientists, hobbyists, gamers, and nerds. That process was already visible to me in the middle of the last decade, although as with most things, this takes time, it’s no more an overnight phenomenon than any other major shift; it takes years, but the inexorable nature of exponential growth eventually becomes obvious to everyone.
I’d say we’re very nearly there. About the only thing the average person–not the engineer, the geek, the gamer, etc., the average person–needs a PC for is if they’re doing a lot of typing. How much of the population is that? A few million in the US I’d wager. Some accountants, some writers, lawyers perhaps, that sort of thing.
I’m going to enjoy the PC as a hobby again. I do wonder at times how much effort there’s going to be to actually make it difficult to make your own computer though. Linux and BSD will likely be the future there I’d think. The turn of the next decade should be interesting to watch in that regard.
Yes, yes, I get it. You will probably always want a PC. So will I. I just honestly wondering if corporate and government entities are going to start going out of their way to make that tough.
Finally, a TED talk I’ve seen that’s actually provocative and interesting. Seems like that’s rare these days:
I especially like his description of, and challenge to, neoclassical economics. Once again this will fly past some ideologues, who try to fit his work into the shallow left/right dichotomy, rather than what he’s actually saying.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy
