BUSINESS: BUNCRANA MAN CROWNED DONEGAL’S BEST YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR

first_imgChristopher Duffy of Duffy Potatoes receives his overall award for Donegal’s Young Entrepreneur of the Year from the Mayor of Donegal, Councillor Ciaran Brogan. Included in the photo are from left councillor Gerry McMonagle, Mayor of the Letterkenny Municipal District, Chief Eexecutive of Donegal County Council, Seamus Neely, Michael Tunney, Head of Enterprise, Donegal Local Enterprise Office and Councillor Enda Bonner.The overall winner of Donegal’s Best Young Entrepreneur 2015 was Christopher Duffy of Duffy Potatoes who also won the Best Start-Up Business Category.Niall McGonigle from Ballyshannon who won the Best New Idea Category in the Donegal Final of Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur competition.Category Winners in the Donegal finals of Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur were from left Niall McGonigle from Ballyshannon who won the Best New Idea Category; Christopher Duffy of Duffy Potatoes who was overall winner and also winner of Best Start-Up category and Aisling Cunningham from Carndonagh who won the Best Established Business Category.The Mayor of Donegal, Councillor Ciaran Brogan pictured with staff from Donegal Local Enterprise, Donegal County Council, members of the adjudication panel for the Donegal final of Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur competition, category winners and competition finalists.Declan Bourke from Stranorlar owner of ‘My Wedding Planner’ app who was a finalists in the Donegal heats of Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur, pictured at the awards ceremony on Friday last with Carole Brenan of Enterprise Ireland who was on the adjudication panel.Jerome Keeny, Letterkenny, Aisling Cunningham, Carndonagh (Best Established Business Category Winner) and Paul Doherty (Kilmacrennan) Donegal finalists in Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur competition pictured at the awards ceremony on Friday.BUSINESS: Buncrana-based young entrepreneur Christopher Duffy has scooped the coveted title of Best Overall Young Entrepreneur in Donegal at the Donegal finals of the Irelands Best Young Entrepreneur competition.Christopher, from Duffy Potatoes who grow, pack and distribute all their own produce, beat off stiff competition from ten other finalists to win the overall award and the award for Best Start-Up Business.It was a good day for the Inishowen peninsula with Carndonagh-based entrepreneur Aisling Cunningham winning the Best Established Business section while Ballyshannon man Niall McGonigle won the award for Best New Idea. Friday’s awards ceremony heard Michael Tunney, Head of Enterprise at Donegal Local Enterprise Office say that from over 70 expressions of interest and in excess of 50 applications were made this year.Twenty two businesses had been selected for the business mentoring bootcamp with 11 then progressing to the final stages of the competition.The Mayor of Donegal, Councillor Ciaran Brogan, praised all those finalists for their innovation and determination:“For me it is refreshing to see so many young people showing leadership in this area and going forward we want to work closely with you. “I really want to congratulate everyone here for being so innovative.“We are unique in Donegal, we have always been very driven and we need to see more innovation, I have no doubt that you will do that.”Chief Executive of Donegal County Council, Seamus Neely urged all of those who had taken part in the competition to continue to engage with Donegal Local Enterprise Office and their partner agencies.“We’re at a time now, hopefully at the very end of what has been a very difficult time for business generally and it was during that time we have depended so much on the innovation of people who would start their own business and take what others would see as a challenge and turn it into an opportunity.“We are very anxious to understand what your needs are and we are anxious as a collective partnership, whether it is ourselves in the LEO and County Council or whether it is the team at LYIT or the team at Enterprise Ireland – whatever the partners. “We are very anxious to understand what your needs are, we are anxious that we know what’s best for the approach that you are bringing, so that we can reflect and accommodate for that.”Speaking afterwards, Christopher Duffy said he had been shocked to hear his name called out.“It was very unexpected, it was a tough category and winning it was very unexpected. I was so chuffed to win the category it was so tough, but to get the overall prize then, well that was unbelievable.”Aisling Cunningham who owns the thriving ‘Poweder ‘n’ Put’ salon in Carndonagh and who designed a new range of high-end make-up brushes, said she was also delighted to win the award. “It’s the first time I’ve ever entered a business competition so this was a whole new experience and it was brilliant to win it, but the whole experience has just been fantastic.“I said to myself today that no matter if I had won or not I have gained so much over the past few weeks and so much for the new idea outside of this competition even. I have just been making connections and focusing on my new idea.“Talking to all the other contestants, everyone said the same thing, everyone has found themselves progressing so much outside of the competition with their business.”Winner of the Best New Idea category was Niall McGonigle with an idea that he hopes will revolutionise patient care for those suffering from bowel cancer.“I studied product design in college and I came up with an idea to help cancer patients. My father had suffered from bowel cancer so that’s where the idea came from.Taking part in the competition was a huge learning curve for me, it redirected my thinking and to be honest between the start and the end of the process, it was the same idea but as if a different person was presenting it, somebody with a much clearer plan for the future.”All three of the Donegal finalists will now progress to the regional finals of the Ireland’s Best Young Entrepreneur competition.BUSINESS: BUNCRANA MAN CROWNED DONEGAL’S BEST YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR was last modified: September 15th, 2015 by Mark ForkerShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:BusinessFeaturesnewslast_img read more

Should A’s worry Oklahoma’s Kyler Murray will choose football?

first_imgOklahoma’s star quarterback Kyle Murray reiterated his plan is to leave football behind after this season and focus on playing baseball for the A’s.But should the A’s, who signed Murray for nearly $5 million, be worried he’ll change his mind?Murray, who has become a leading candidate for the Heisman Trophy during his spectacular season for Oklahoma, didn’t exactly squash speculation Monday.“I feel like I can play in the NFL,” Murray told reporters in Oklahoma. “But as far as giving …last_img read more

Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week: What Thou Doest, Do Quickly

first_imgThis award should be for last week since the article on EurekAlert was dated Jan 29.  From a press release at Rice University, it begins:It’s a mystery why the speed and complexity of evolution appear to increase with time.  For example, the fossil record indicates that single-celled life first appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, and it then took about 2.5 billion more years for multi-cellular life to evolve.  That leaves just a billion years or so for the evolution of the diverse menagerie of plants, mammals, insects, birds and other species that populate the earth.It’s clear the author of that line was not asking if the speed and complexity of evolution increased, but why it did.  The article tries to make a rather logically incestuous point that evolution selects for faster evolvability (see 08/04/2004 entry and 10/04/2005 commentary).    Later on in the article, a quote by Michael Deem implies that the whole complex human immune system was a simple mistake: “For example, we can trace the development of the adaptive immune system in humans and other jointed vertebrates to an HGT insertion1 about 400 million years ago.”  Elementary, my dear Michael. 1HGT = horizontal gene transfer.  Some other creature’s gene for immunity from some unknown source inserted itself into the line leading to man – so the story goes.  How that gene provided immune function is left as an exercise (for speculation).Evolution is the omniscient, omnipotent, inscrutable deity of the Darwinists.  At least Christians have a real God instead of a virtual one.  If you pray to a virtual deity, you only get a virtual answer.  Dictionary.com also indicates that virtual can mean: “Simulated; performing the functions of something that isn’t really there.  An imaginative child’s doll may be a virtual playmate.”  Interpretation: Darwinists are still playing with Tinker Bell dolls and should grow up.(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Genetic Convergent Evolution Strains Credibility

first_img“Convergent evolution” is the term given to similar designs that shouldn’t be related.  Recent widespread examples threaten to make the term lose any coherence it might have had.Bats and dolphins:  It’s been long known that bats and dolphins, thought to have diverged in the mammalian family tree xx million years ago, both use echolocation.  What was not known till now was that the similarities proceed all the way to the genetic level.  In Nature, Erika Check Hayden said, “A new analysis suggests that many genes evolved in parallel in bats and dolphins as each developed the remarkable ability to echolocate.”  By many, they’re talking three orders of magnitude. The title is “Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes.”Each of these genes, presumably, mutated independently in the two groups, since their presumed common ancestor would not have had the well-developed sensory apparatus for this “complex physical trait.”  Charles Q. Choi on Live Science tried to preserve the credibility of the “convergent evolution” explanation.  It’s not clear how helpful it is, though, to pile on examples:Bats and dolphins may live in radically different worlds, but the fact they both evolved a type of sonar means they resemble each other genetically, researchers now find.When different species live similar lives, they can evolve similar traits, a phenomenon known as convergent evolution. For instance, dolphins, sharks and the extinct marine giants known as ichthyosaurs all differ from each other greatly in origin — dolphins are mammals, sharks are fish and ichthyosaurs were reptiles. However, they evolved very similar body shapes that help them live fast lives in the water — streamlined forms, stabilizing dorsal fins and crescent-shaped tails for traveling great speeds over long distances.Recently, scientists found hints that convergent evolution caused species to resemble each other not just at the physical level, but also the genetic one.Expecting maybe 10-30 genetic similarities, researchers found 200, in genes related to hearing and sight.  “These similarities were not seen with non-echolocating animals,” Choi said.  Joe Parker (Queen Mary College, U of London) explained this “surprising result” by attributing greater power to blind, undirected processes: “Natural selection can be a very powerful force for shaping genetic sequences, and the outcomes of that process can be very similar, even in unrelated organisms.”  Hayden made evolution out to be some kind of detective:Different organisms often independently evolve similar observable traits such as anatomical or functional features, but the genetic changes underpinning such ‘convergent evolution’ are usually different. The new study, published today in Nature, hints that evolution may be finding the same genetic solutions to a problem more often than previously thought.Science Now expressed no doubt at all in the explanatory power of convergent evolution, even if it must rely on blind, aimless mutations.  The article “Bats and Dolphins Evolved Echolocation in the Same Way” says –Dolphins and bats don’t have much in common, but they share a superpower: Both hunt their prey by emitting high-pitched sounds and listening for the echoes. Now, a study shows that this ability arose independently in each group of mammals from the same genetic mutations. The work suggests that evolution sometimes arrives at new traits through the same sequence of steps, even in very different animals.The article continues, “Nature is full of examples of convergent evolution,” listing wings as an example that evolved 4 times in birds, bats, insects and flying reptiles.  “Biologists have assumed that these novelties were devised, on a genetic level, in fundamentally different ways” – an assumption that might have fit with the randomness of mutations.  The new study undermines that assumption.  One scientist not involved with the study remarked, “The biggest surprise is probably the extent to which convergent molecular evolution seems to be widespread in the genome.”This finding could have devastating effects on the ability of evolutionists to separate homology and analogy.  It basically scrambles the signal of natural selection.  Science Now ends,The discovery that molecular convergence can be widespread in a genome is “bittersweet,” [Todd] Castoe [U of Texas] adds. Biologists building family trees are likely being misled into suggesting that some organisms are closely related because genes and proteins are similar due to convergence, and not because the organisms had a recent common ancestor. No family trees are entirely safe from these misleading effects, Castoe says. “And we currently have no way to deal with this.”That’s on top of the difficulty of building Darwinian trees in the first place (see 6/05/13).Birds, too:  A paper in Nature on “Evolutionary origins of the avian brain” claims that encephalization (brain enlargment) evolved independently multiple times in birds, mammals, and dinosaurs: “The hyperinflated forebrains of birds and mammals evolved independently, possibly in response to different sensory cues; derived olfactory capabilities versus enhanced visual acuity.”This is not an article about convergent evolution.  It is an article about dogmatic faith.  Evolutionists cannot, and will not, face up to facts that contradict their theory.  They always manage to fold the unexpected into their tale.  God could not have made it clearer that animals have common design rather than common descent by exhibiting hundreds of cases that could not have diverged by an evolutionary process.Attributing convergent evolution to the environment is a dodge that merely displaces the “creative power” of un-creation to another mindless entity subject to chance.  And calling natural selection “a very powerful force” is, once again, a fallacy.  Natural selection is not a force.  It is a mindless, careless bump in the road, like one of those hubs in a pinball machine.  It is not going to force the animal to score a point without an intelligent agent controlling the action.To have flight evolve, or sonar, or legs, or eyes – by an undirected process – just a single time would defy credibility.  Yet evolutionists readily speak of multiple instances of independent evolution of these things without a hint of embarrassment.  “Convergent evolution” is not an explanation for what is observed.  It is silly dogma pretending to be scientific explanation.  Don’t fall for its jargon name “homoplasy” which means, etymologically, “same form,” or for the false dichotomy “homology” (i.e., via common ancestry) vs “analogy” (i.e., not via common ancestry) – a distinction that embeds Darwinian assumptions in the terms. (Visited 113 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Darwinism Still Corrupts Culture

first_imgThe bad fruits of Social Darwinism are well known. Less well known are ongoing negative influences of modern Darwinian ideas on human behavior.How Do You Correct Behavior Based on Fake Science?Have you been led to believe that men are naturally more promiscuous because sperm cells are cheap? that women are more choosy because eggs are costly? It’s all bunk. Phys.org just published the following headline: “Data should smash the biological myth of promiscuous males and sexually coy females.” That’s strong wording: smash, myth. New findings are teaching the opposite: men can be coy, and women promiscuous. But both ideas, being based on Darwinian ideas that people are just animals, can have unspeakably horrible consequences for marriage, family, and civilization.The article is merciless in its attack on this myth:These ideas, which are pervasive in Western culture, also have served as the cornerstone for the evolutionary study of sexual selection, sex differences and sex roles among animals. Only recently have some scientists – fortified with modern data – begun to question their underlying assumptions and the resulting paradigm.If Thomas Kuhn were still living, he would have here a great new illustration of his theory of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions. The article fingers Charles Darwin himself as the mastermind of this fake science. His disciples took it and ran with it.These simple assumptions are based, in part, on the differences in size and presumed energy cost of producing sperm versus eggs – a contrast that we biologists call anisogamy. Charles Darwin was the first to allude to anisogamy as a possible explanation for male-female differences in sexual behavior.His brief mention was ultimately expanded by others into the idea that because males produce millions of cheap sperm, they can mate with many different females without incurring a biological cost. Conversely, females produce relatively few “expensive,” nutrient-containing eggs; they should be highly selective and mate only with one “best male.” He, of course, would provide more than enough sperm to fertilize all a female’s eggs.Surely this notion was tested, right? The article explains how Angus Bateman, a botanist, ran some experiments one time in 1948 on fruit flies (not human fly-by-nighters). Telling a whopper from this miniscule test, he alleged that the promiscuous-male-choosy-female scenario “was a near-universal characteristic of all sexually reproducing species.” In 1972, Robert Trivers amplified on the idea, talking about males’ “cheap investment” in sperm. Read the following quote, and think about what sexually active guys in dorm rooms are supposed to think about normal behavior after evolutionary biology class:In other words, females evolved to choose males prudently and mate with only one superior male; males evolved to mate indiscriminately with as many females as possible. Trivers believed that this pattern is true for the great majority of sexual species.The problem is, it isn’t true! The article explains many counter-examples. Men have just as much reason to be careful about their sex cells. It’s not the number; it’s the biological cost, the article explains. Semen contains many compounds that are expensive to produce. Men can run out of sperm. Consequently, males have every reason to be “choosy” about mating, too. Think of the consequences of poorly-tested bad ideas:The problem is, modern data simply don’t support most of Bateman’s and Trivers’ predictions and assumptions. But that didn’t stop “Bateman’s Principle” from influencing evolutionary thought for decades.Now get this: the article—still founded on evolutionary notions that people are just animals—makes matters even worse. Based on the latest Darwinian notions about sex, the article claims that females tend to be just as promiscuous as males. Think about how that will influence college students!If you think nobody teaches “Bateman’s Principle” any more these days, look at another post on Phys.org that came about the same time, like two ships passing in the night. Steiner Branslet writes about “One night stand regrets.” Another study supposedly shows that women have more regrets than men about casual sex. Look what it’s based on:“Women and men differ fundamentally in their sexual psychology,” says Professor Buss. “A key limitation on men’s reproductive success, historically, has been sexual access to fertile women. These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.“The quality of one’s sexual partner in short-term relationships plays a lesser role biologically for men. Assuming women did not avoid having sex with them, men who ran from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.Sounds like Bateman’s Principle, right? Sure. Men just act the way evolution makes them act. “Female choice—deciding when, where, and with whom to have sex— is perhaps the most fundamental principle of women’s sexual psychology,” says one of the evolutionists in the article, referring implicitly to the views of Darwin, Bateman and Trivers. How about the guys? “These evolutionary selection pressures have created a male sexual mind that is attentive to sexual opportunities.”Take these quotes and apply them to the dormitory. Think of all the blessed effects on marriage and family down the line; after all, “Culture does not change biology,” this article admonishes. We can’t fight natural selection. Nor should we.An overall explanation presumably lies in the fundamental differences between men and women.The study results support theories of parental investment and sexual strategy: men and women have throughout generations invested differently in their relationships and any children that resulted.We’re talking evolution psychology here.Of course, if humans are more than mere animals, the whole conversation is fake science. We have comprehensive instructions from an all-wise Creator on how we are are to choose our sexual behaviors. But to the consensus, that doesn’t qualify as science. They feel we must derive our sexual ethics from the blind processes of natural selection, which couldn’t care a whit about morals.Other Darwin Fake Science with Evil FruitBateman’s Principle is not the only example of fake science that corrupts culture. Here are more interested readers can investigate:Social Darwinism in 2017. Can you get away with racism today? Evolutionists appear to have no qualms. In a PNAS paper entitled, “Selection against variants in the genome associated with educational attainment,” no less than 15 evolutionists claim that Icelanders with less education have more kids. “The rate of decrease is small per generation but marked on an evolutionary timescale,” they say. “Another important observation is that the association between the score and fertility remains highly significant after adjusting for the educational attainment of the individuals.” Figure this conundrum out: “This is thus a striking case where a variant associated with a phenotype typically regarded as unfavorable could nonetheless be also associated with increased ‘fitness’ in the evolutionary sense.” Well, if that’s the case, might as well go with the flow. Quit school and have more sex. Darwinism is as Darwinism does.Myth-busting Neanderthal narrative takes decades. A lengthy piece in the New York Times shows how long it has taken to overcome what CEH calls “historical racism,” the myth that fossil humans were “other” than human. That’s why we give them other species names, like Homo neanderthalensis. NY Times reporter Jon Mooallem interviews the work of Clive Finlayson at Gibraltar who shows many reasons why “Neanderthals were people, too.” He tells how Frenchman Marcellin Boule in 1911 propagated the Neanderthal myth of stoop-shouldered, beetle-browed imbeciles on their way to the cave cookout. “A lot of what he said was wrong,” Mooallem finds from Finlayson. “Still, Boule’s influence was long-lasting. Over the years, his ideologically tainted image of Neanderthals was often refracted through the lens of other ideologies, occasionally racist ones.”LGBT tales. The inverse influence of culture on science is a fascinating area of philosophy. Check for it in a book review in Science Magazine this week, where Sheri Berenbaum wrestles with the normality of deviant gender roles while reviewing Cordelia Fine’s new book, Testosterone Rex Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (Norton, 2017). Approach this quote like a qualified observer of social influences on science, paying attention to Berebaum’s use of culturally-popular buzzphrases as she plays the academic “On the one hand this, but on the other hand that” game:I welcome and applaud Fine’s efforts to ground policy in science and to spotlight the false reasoning and dichotomies that appear in popular books and some policies (such as single-sex education). I also recognize (and regret) the long history—and present—of using biology to justify inferior treatment of women. This no doubt contributes to resistance to evidence of biological differences among those seeking gender equality.The challenge is not to dismiss biological explanations of sex differences but to articulate clearly their implications. We can accept that biology contributes to behavioral sex differences and simultaneously argue that gender inequalities are not intractable. Rather than rejecting biological differences, we must seek to reveal the nonsense in the arguments that brain and behavioral sex differences justify discrimination, segregation, and differential treatment of the sexes.Shocking but true. At Live Science, Jonathan Sadowsky of Case Western Reserve University tells about “the wild history of electroconvulsive therapy.” Early shock treatments were horrifying to watch; modern ones are milder, he says. While not directly tied to Darwinian theory, this article assumes the brain is merely a physical organ, and that shocking it with electrical impulses can help with “mental illnesses” that are assumed to be mere biological abnormalities. While some forms of depression have biological causes, what about mental illnesses that have a spiritual root or stem from true guilt? The following quote shows how scientific thinking is often tied to the culture of the day. This example is from the 1950s. Are scientists today culpable of such “medicalizing behavior”?At that time, ECT was also used as a “treatment” for homosexuality, then considered by psychiatrists to be an illness. This was not a major part of ECT practice, but this is not a comfort to gay people who received the treatment, for whom it could be traumatizing. The psychiatrists who used ECT in this way sincerely believed they were trying to help sick people, which serves as a warning against “medicalizing” behavior, and assuming that this will reduce stigma. This use of ECT did not last, in part because there was no evidence it did alter anyone’s sexuality. But it survived in the social memory of the therapy.Punish nations with carbon penance. Nature‘s editorial this week says, “Base the social cost of carbon on the science.” The very title assumes that science can speak definitively on something as global as climate a hundred years from now, when we can’t even predict the weather 15 days out. New unknowns and revisions come out weekly, as we have reported (1/18/17); just today, Phys.org said that humans, not climate, caused the extinction of megafauna in Australia 45,000 Darwin years ago. While not tied to Darwinian evolution directly, this editorial shares the assumptions of scientism and millions of years. Nature‘s anti-Trumpism comes out again in the article, accusing the new US president and his appointees of “disregard for science” even though the Editors acknowledge, “There is, of course, plenty of room for debate.”Fake science and false certainty. In closing, we should consider the views  of a Worldview op-ed column in Nature: “Anita Makri argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty.” Yet she argues that scientists should “Give the public the tools to trust scientists.” Mouthing Pontius Pilate, she begins, “What is truth?” Of the two groups she works in that are concerned with truth (scientists and journalists), she believes that journalists are doing a good job (despite all the evidence for fake news in the mainstream media, complained about by conservatives, like Breitbart News; see also Breitbart’s report on BBC’s admission they’ve been biased; meanwhile, New Scientist is overtly publishing a very biased and unscientific series, “Resisting Trump”). But “Scientists need to catch up, or they risk further marginalization in a society that is increasingly weighing evidence and making decisions without them.” Science is “losing its relevance as a source of truth,” she worries.Yet further reading reveals her faith in scientism. The only purveyors of fake news are the conservatives, she suggests with a link to another Nature story accusing Breitbart News of that. To Makri, scientists don’t tell lies; they just don’t have all the facts yet. Scientists may have gaps in their knowledge, but it will eventually catch up to the truth, because in scientism, science works as a truth generator in due time—the most reliable truth generator in the world. “Current debates about truth are far from trivial,” she ends. “More scientists and communicators of science need to get involved, update practices and reposition themselves in a way that gets with the times and shows that science matters — while it still does.” In other words, scientists don’t have a truth problem; just a talking points problem (echoed in Nature‘s interviews with three scientists about how to solve “post-truth predicaments”). One wonders what would be these “experts”‘ responses to the paradigms above about promiscuity, Neanderthals, electroshock therapy, racism and the other matters that have really hurt real people under the guise of “scientific truth.”After the historical and current examples we listed above, do you trust scientists when it comes to their pronouncements about how people should live and behave? Jesus said it succinctly with timeless wisdom: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). A species puts out what is in its genes.One scientist wrote a letter to Nature that bears quoting. “Beware of scientists wielding red pens,” he titles his comment about censorship.By inviting scientists to take their ‘red pens to the Internet’ and grade online sources of science reporting, Phil Williamson implies that science is the primary and final voice in public discussion (Nature 540, 171; 2016). This disregards other ways in which people make sense of their lives through political debate, social context, personal connections or beliefs (see also D. Sarewitz Nature 522, 413–414; 2015). It stems from the naive myth of science as a disinterested producer of neutral truths.Science has a delicate relationship with society. Both have the right to speak and both shape one another — for better or worse. Governance and government rely increasingly on a science that is embedded in socio-political arenas populated by scientists, policymakers and citizens, among others. Not every expertise is equally credible, but a democratic society should allow each one to have a voice.To discredit them online may feel like defending the honour and public status of science, but it is a form of censorship. Science cannot impose its truths through power play — it must convince through symmetrical and open conversation. Whoa! Did you get that?In that second link, Sarewitz had said this:Scientists are not elected. They cannot represent the cultural values, politics and interests of citizens — not least because their values may differ significantly from those of people in other walks of life. A 2007 study on the social implications of nanotechnology, for instance, showed that nanoscientists had little concern about such technologies eliminating jobs, whereas the public was greatly concerned (see ‘A matter of perspective’). Each group was being rational. Nanoscientists have good reason to be optimistic about the opportunities created by technological frontiers; citizens can be justifiably worried that such frontiers will wreak havoc on labour markets. Unfortunately, such voices of reason are often drowned out by Big Scientism.(Visited 133 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

South African author Ivan Vladislavić wins Yale’s Windham-Campbell prize for fiction

first_imgIvan Vladislavić, the writer and editor, has won the Yale University Windham-Campbell Prize for fiction. The cash it brings will allow him “to pursue my own work in a way that’s never been possible before”, says the Wits University professor. Author Ivan Vladislavić has put South Africa on the global literature map once more with his winning of the Yale University Windham-Campbell Prize for fiction. (Image: Sophie Bassouls, A1 Verlag) • Pavement Bookworm ‘just wants to tell stories’ • Joburg: A city of stories • South African writes best world children’s book • Ingrid Jonker – the child is not dead • Knowing Mandela: a short book about a big man Priya PitamberIvan Vladislavić has added to his collection of accolades: the prestigious Yale University Windham-Campbell Prize for fiction.“Since I received the news of the prize, I have been in a bit of a daze,” the author, editor and professor said after the announcement in late February.“It is astonishingly generous and will make a decisive difference to my writing life.”Vladislavić and the other winners, Teju Cole and Helon Habila, each received $150 000 (almost R1.8-million) for their work. There are three prize categories, namely fiction, non-fiction and drama.The awards were established by Donald Windham and Sandy M Campbell in 2013 to honour literary talent.The Windham-Campbell organisation noted Vladislavić’s unique approach to seeing history “in the quotidian and juxtaposing the banal and the bizarre”.Ivan Vladislavić has won the 2015 Windham-Campbell Prize for fiction! Read more>> http://t.co/4b0wSEgsBN #PRHSA — Random House Struik (@RandomStruik) February 25, 2015Watch Vladislavić receive his award:In an interview with online literature magazine Aerodrome, he said he loved to write. “And I get some of the same pleasure from editing, which is about perfecting something, getting all the working parts to fit properly – constructing something.” This could be because as a child, he watched his mechanic father fix car engines, he said, taking things apart and putting them back together again.Reaction to his win has been hugely positive. “A more worthy winner for this prestigious award would be hard to find,” said Fourie Botha, publisher of local fiction at Penguin Random House South Africa. Steve Connolly, the publishing house’s managing director, said that everyone should read Vladislavić.No-one can replace Jon Stewart. But together with the amazing team at The Daily Show, we will continue to make this the best damn news show!— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) March 30, 2015 Mighty pleased to hear that Ivan Vladislavić has won the prestigious Windham Campbell Prize http://t.co/dpy7vyAxyl via @BooksLIVESA — Michele Magwood (@michelemagwood) February 25, 2015@BooksLIVESA What wonderful news, especially for Ivan, one of Johannesburg’s writing heroes @WindhamCampbell — Louis Greenberg (@louisgreenberg) February 24, 2015The Windham-Campbell Prize was not Vladislavić’s first. Other trophies on his display shelf include the Sunday Times Fiction Prize, the University of Johannesburg Prize and the Sunday Times Alan Paton Award for non-fiction. Despite this, the author is humble. “Thank you for recognising the work I’ve already done and for supporting the work I still want to do,” he told the Windham-Campbell organisation.Although he did acknowledge that the prize money would make a difference. “For most of my working life, I’ve been a freelancer and it hasn’t always been easy to make ends meet,” he told Business Day. “Two extraordinary things have happened to me recently: I took up a distinguished professorship at Wits [University] and now I’ve won this prize. Together these two strokes of good fortune will allow me to pursue my own work in a way that’s never been possible before. I’m a lucky man.”last_img read more

Cong, CPI(M) come together for WB by-polls

first_imgThe Congress and the Left Front have decided to share seats in the Assembly by-polls in three constituencies again after the 2016 Assembly elections. While Congress will contest in Kaliaganj in North Dinajpur and Kharagpur in West Medinipur district, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M)-led Left Front will contest in Karimpur of the Nadia district. The election dates are yet to be declared. The Left Front and Congress did not have a seat-sharing adjustment in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and both parties performed badly. While the Congress secured two out of 42 seats, the Left Front secured none and the seat adjustment did not materialise after several rounds of negotiations. One of the reasons for Left Front’s half-heartedness in sharing seats with the Congress in the Lok Sabha was complaints from local leaders. The Left’s district leaders complained that while the Left Front’s votes transferred to the Congress in the 2016 Assembly polls, Congress’ votes did not. The CPI(M)’s senior leader and central committee member Sujan Chakraborty, however, underscored a separate point of view while explaining why the Left and the Congress were coming together in the 2019 Assembly by-polls.‘Atmosphere vitiated’“There is a sharp rise in communalism in the country and the State. Increasingly the State’s atmosphere is getting vitiated. While the Trinamool Congress (TMC) is equally responsible along with the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in spoiling the atmosphere, we felt — in line with last year’s (party) resolution — that we need to work together with forces that are democratic to an extent,” Mr. Chakraborty told The Hindu. Talking about the transfer of vote share from the Congress to the Left, Mr. Chakravorty said that he hoped the Congress would take a proactive position in transferring the votes. .State Congress president Somendra Nath Mitra had told journalists earlier that “together, we will able to defeat the BJP and the TMC.”last_img read more