Articles tagged with "value"

Late last week saw some carnage in crypto markets - dubbed the crypto crash. We've covered cryptocurrencies and their associated technologies, such as NFTs many times.

It is hard to avoid hearing about Bitcoin and other so-called cryptocurrencies these days. Almost every issue of every newspaper has an article about some aspect of Bitcoin. As a researcher in cryptography I have been interested in Bitcoin since around 2013 (though I confess to have never "mined" a block or invested in Bitcoin). The purpose of this article is not to explain the technology of Bitcoin or to give a detailed overview of it. And I am definitely not giving investment advice! Instead I want to highlight a few aspects of the Bitcoin story that I think are of particular interest to skeptics.

Ethics and morality are often regarded as beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. But certain values appear to be shared by all humans as species-typical adaptations. This article is based on a presentation to the 2011 NZ Skeptics conference in Christchurch.

The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values. Sam Harris. 2010. Free Press, New York. ISBN 978-1-4391-7121-9 Reviewed by Martin Wallace.

Presenting numbers with excessive and artifical precision in product labels, newspaper articles and report tables does nothing for scientific credibility and sows confusion in the mind of the reader.

In connection with David Riddell's article about "Ancient Celtic New Zealand" (Skeptic, Winter 2004) your readers may be interested in my more detailed examination of the twaddle in Martin Doutré's book in two articles published in the Auckland Astronomical Society Journal last year.

I am finding it difficult to respond to Alan P Ryan's diatribe (Skeptic Autumn 2004) as it borders on the incoherent and self-contradictory. I wonder if it will help if I summarise my views on moral values, about which he seems confused.

Although I have been receiving free email alerts for a long time, I am a (very) new member. Among the goodies which I received a couple of days ago was the Spring, 2003 newsletter, number 69. Obviously, free speech is the first requisite of such an organ, but I was rather taken aback by contribution in Forum from Lance Kennedy of Tantec, an organisation in the biocide industry, on the subject of global warming. Its content is highly selective, and it contravenes all the principles outlined in the Skeptics Guide to Critical Thinking. He writes of a "sound and healthy reluctance to subscribe to anthropogenic greenhouse... warming". He says that the Scientific American is committed to "greenie (a pejorative term which has no place in a serious discussion) nonsense".

Howard Bezar and Denis Curtain

WE WERE skeptical. We demanded you respond to our clarion call for pithy pieces -- but only a few of you pithed on us. For this we are grateful and we have sent suitable telepathic gifts to all of you, for which you should be grateful. But seriously, a couple of readers have queried our policy on the format of submissions which they've interpreted as meaning we don't accept handwritten copy. Wrong. Our eyesight is sometimes challenged by the individualistic handwriting styles we sometimes see, so we prefer typed or disc-supplied copy because we can then guarantee accuracy. But above all, we encourage you enthusiastically to send interesting forum pieces in whatever format you have available. The only criteria we use in selecting pieces for the forum is their value and interest to readers. The writer of the best piece published in the next issue will receive the definitive volume on proven homeopathic remedies.