Tags

19th century 20th century academia africa al qaeda america architecture art biography business christianity economics emotions ethics europe everyday existence gender germany globalization government health history ideology islam justice law literature media studies medicine musicology new york city philosophy polemics political science power presidency public policy race religion rights science sexuality social mobility sociology sovereignty state united states urbanism urbanity violence

eakins thomas eames charles earth eastern europe ecological economics ecology economic crisis economic history economic policy economics economy ecosystem edelstein david edinburgh education egan timothy egypt elections electrons eliott t s elizabeth i ellington duke ellison ralph elso juan francisco embryos emin pasha emotions empire endangered species endangered species act energy engineering england enlai zhou enlightenment entertainment entrepreneurship environment environmentalism equal rights amendment equality ethics ethnicity ethnography etzler john eugenics euro europe european commission european court of justice european monetary union european union evans ben evans walker evans-wentz walter everyday everyday existence evolution evolutionary anthropology evolutionary psychology exercise existence existentialism eyes

Spontaneous generation is one of those wrong theories that clutter the basements of the biological sciences and that now look so very obviously wrong that it is hard to see how anyone could have taken them seriously in the first place. Why wouldn’t it occur to anyone that flies might be laying eggs that were too small for us to see? How simple would the crucial experiment be? What I have tried to do in much of my work is to turn this ‘obvious wrongness’ on its head—why, exactly, does it seem so obviously wrong?—and see what the new picture that emerges from that inquiry says about science and our belief in its results.

Daryn Lehoux,
Interview of November 13, 2017

It’s commonplace to say that humor is subjective, since what’s funny to you might not be funny to me. But humor is also a loaded concept. If you – or your people – have no sense of humor, or the wrong one, that means you’re less rational, tolerant, understanding, or civilized. You don’t get it. Or, worse, you lack something human. Modern Chinese debates about humor were very much caught up with these fundamental questions of value.

Christopher Rea,
Interview of October 26, 2016