Please send all articles you'd like to be published on RS to info@rationalskepticism.org.
I already got a few good articles but just letting everyone know where to send the stuff.

Got that Bernhard.

I'm just making a complete revision of my contribution in light of certain discussions I've had with members here. Just letting you know I haven't forgotten.

I have an advanced draft of an essay on 'Are there two kinds of theist?' It started life as a possible OP for a thread, and then ... well ... went into Topsy mode, and probably isn't suitable any longer for its original intended purpose.

Please let me know if you'd like to see it.

By the way, have any such essays/articles been published on the site yet? If they have, I can't find them.

Will S wrote:I have an advanced draft of an essay on 'Are there two kinds of theist?' It started life as a possible OP for a thread, and then ... well ... went into Topsy mode, and probably isn't suitable any longer for its original intended purpose.

Please let me know if you'd like to see it.

By the way, have any such essays/articles been published on the site yet? If they have, I can't find them.

Sure send it along.
Nothing has been published yet, will publish once the new site is up (there will be an extra area for articles, seperate from the forum).

I'd like to write something on placebos and somatic effects a - a critical study of the experimental literature. I'd be looking for a couple of medically qualified or orientated co-authors???

j x

hey,

I'm a theist, but I could write a sympathetic interpretation of Hume's argument regarding testimony and miracles.

jerome wrote:I'd like to write something on placebos and somatic effects a - a critical study of the experimental literature. I'd be looking for a couple of medically qualified or orientated co-authors???

j x

There's a member called SteveBrewer who'll know everything you need to know on that subject. He's pretty busy at the moment though so I don't know if he'll have time to help you or not, but at the very least he might be able to direct you toward some relevant research. Or he might just ignore you completely...

bookmarking

I would be interested in writing something about the psychology of atheism, if that might be appropriate for this site.

Atheist PhD wrote:I would be interested in writing something about the psychology of atheism, if that might be appropriate for this site.

I'd be interested in reading that!

ETA: It occurs to me that a lot of the interest in these articles (or at least to me) is going to be in the ideas and writing styles of our fellow forum members, not to mention the subjects they choose to write about.

may I give a very general suggestion: form a small group of about 10 readers that is a peer reading group. From this pool 3 people are chosen by the team of mods to give their opinion of the article made. That way keeps a certain level in the articles.

Benach wrote:may I give a very general suggestion: form a small group of about 10 readers that is a peer reading group. From this pool 3 people are chosen by the team of mods to give their opinion of the article made. That way keeps a certain level in the articles.

As long as there is room for corruption and bribery then I'm ok with it.

OK, I've finished writing my Saudi book, so I've got some spare time on my hands.

I'd be willing to have a crack at "Evolution is only a theory".

And Hugh, the cheque is in the mail.

I could write an article about "Hume and miracles", or anything about Hume. I've carefully read and taken notes on his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I was thinking about writing one on free will and determinism (liberty and necessity), which Hume also addresses.

I'd like to submit one of my posts as a contender for an essay ... namely Why Design Assertionists Are Screwed ... (regulars will understand the reference in the title ) ...

I'm writing an article about the importance of philosophy, which also addresses some misconceptions about the field and the word "philosophy" itself.

Calilasseia wrote:I'd like to submit one of my posts as a contender for an essay ... namely Why Design Assertionists Are Screwed ... (regulars will understand the reference in the title ) ...

Acktoooally, professional biologists do use a "design" paradigm when considering adaptation, but from an engineering standpoint of the organ or tissue involved, but the "designer" is, of course, NS, Sexual selection, drift etc...and is subject to the constraints of the process: like no "look-ahead capabilities", every stage must be functional and positively selected, etc, etc. So within this context, asking a question like "What is the purpose of a wing?", or how well does the wing do it's job?" etc, are perfectly valid.

There is actually something that looks like a "look ahead" capability in evolution because genes build bodies that can cope with historical environments. As environmental conditions often cycle, then some trait can look "predictive" because the organism's gene pool has encountered that condition before. Like fur coats molting for the onset of summer. Plus there is "bet-hedging"...by some females that will mate with multiple males in the hope [metaphorically speaking, of course] that a more genetically diverse litter of offspring will allow some of the young to survive in a greater range of environmental stresses. Creationists see all this as some sort of divine plan, of course. They ignore the blood, death and suffering that the NS process uses to produce such [apparent] "fine-tuning" of organism to environment. There is also, sex, parasite loads etc....

The larger the population, [and hence the amount of variation available in the gene pool] and the faster the generational rate, the mutanogenic stimuli [radiation, toxins etc] the more likely an appropriate mutation will turn up to save the day, and be able to meet a novel environmental challenge. So under Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium conditions, the right mutation[s] will appear instantaneously. However, [of course] H-W conditions are never seen in nature, but populations and generation times etc are often large enough to save a species from extinction. But of course, in the end, extinction is inevitable. The law of averages catches up.

Is there a date yet for the launch of this new section?

I propose also a new function regarding the article- senction.
Next to the "quote" button maybe there can be a "recomment it as article" button or something like that, so the good posts can be voted to be articles in our forum. The poster will not be able to vote for their own post.

maik wrote:I propose also a new function regarding the article- senction.
Next to the "quote" button maybe there can be a "recomment it as article" button or something like that, so the good posts can be voted to be articles in our forum. The poster will not be able to vote for their own post.

+1