30 Phil, Chapter 9: Contrary to the traditional view that casts Plato and Aristotle as proponents of differing philosophies, this fresh perspective suggests they were actually quite close.
Computer Science.
3 random tidbit stories in about 3 minutes.
Idea 1.
A Computer Science Story.
New Look
I wrote that Computer Science Story,
and posted it to TST 2 years ago.
Idea 2.
A Computer Science FAQ.
The Crinum coal mine, located in Queensland, Australia, provides an interesting case study in the reliability and challenges of dating methods. It also demonstrates two fallacies: Cherry-Picking and Strawman.
First, this question is sometimes used by young-earth creationists to cast doubt on the reliability of dating techniques. Specifically, they point to trace amounts of carbon-14 found in ancient coal deposits and argue that this suggests a much younger age for the coal. Since carbon-14 dating is only effective for materials up to about 50,000 years old, they claim that its presence in coal undermines the entire framework of radiometric dating.
Can you see what’s wrong with this argument? Let’s focus on the Cherry-Picking and Strawman fallacies. The Cherry-Picking Fallacy occurs when someone selectively presents evidence that supports their claim while ignoring a broader body of data that contradicts it. In this case, young-earth proponents focus on an anomaly—trace carbon-14 in coal—while ignoring the overwhelming evidence confirming the coal’s Permian age of 275 million years ago. Instead of considering multiple dating methods that align with each other, they seize on a single point of data that can be explained by contamination, background radiation, or measurement limitations.
Next, the Strawman Fallacy happens when an argument misrepresents a position to make it easier to attack. By pointing to minor anomalies in carbon-14 dating, critics argue that all radiometric dating is unreliable. But this misrepresents how science works. Radiometric dating involves multiple independent methods that are used together to cross-verify results. No geologist relies on carbon-14 to date coal that is hundreds of millions of years old, so using this as a counterargument against geological dating is a classic strawman.
The Crinum coal mine teaches us an important lesson: critical thinking requires looking at the full body of evidence, not just selectively chosen data points.
I wrote that Computer Science FAQ,
and posted it to TST 2 years ago.
Idea 3.
A Computer Science Story.
65,000 BCE
Discovered in 2019, Homo luzonensis inhabited the Luzon area north of Manila in the Philippines from at least about 67,000 to about 50,000 years ago. While current evidence suggests that Homo luzonensis may have become extinct before the documented arrival of Homo sapiens around 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, the exact timing of their extinction remains uncertain.
Lineage: Similar to Homo floresiensis, the luzonensis people are not likely descendants of Homo heidelbergensis. It is more plausible that they descended from an earlier ancient human, possibly from the Dmanisi population, an early Asian Homo erectus lineage, or potentially even directly from Homo habilis. However, any direct link to Homo habilis is speculative, but particularly interesting given the small brain size and stature of the luzonensis people.
Imagined Image: A small group of Homo luzonensis in a dense tropical forest on Luzon. This visualization emphasizes their survival strategies and interactions within their lush habitat.
Survival: From about 50,000 to 67,000 years ago (possibly earlier) in Luzon area, near Manilla, Philippines.
Size: 3′ 3″ to 3′ 7″ (same size or smaller than Homo floresiensis)
Brain Size: Estimated around 400 cm³ (about the same size as Homo floresiensis).
Brain to Body Encephalization Quotient (EQ): Ongoing research but likely about the same as Homo floresiensis, about 3.2.
I wrote that Computer Science Story,
and posted it to TST 2 years ago.