Day 4 of Raiders training camp: A small dose of Antonio Brown

first_imgNAPA — The Raiders got a glimpse of life with Antonio Brown Tuesday, and the perennial Pro Bowl receiver left coaches and teammates wanting more.That’s just a little preview, a little taste, so imagine him being in on every play with (Derek Carr) back there,” wide receiver J.J. Nelson said. “It’s going to be fun. It’s going to be exciting. I’m looking forward to lighting up the scoreboard.”Brown went through warmups and drills in full pads, and then through one session with receivers …last_img

Big Science in Big Trouble

first_imgThe default religion of secularism has fallen from grace.America is quickly following Europe’s descent from Christian roots to secularism. A National Geographic feature calls the newest religion to be “no religion.” A quarter of the population are religiously unaffiliated, the article reports, answering “none” when asked what religion they espouse. And why? What is the one of the largest reasons for the shift?If the world is at a religious precipice, then we’ve been moving slowly toward it for decades. Fifty years ago, Time asked in a famous headline, “Is God Dead?” The magazine wondered whether religion was relevant to modern life in the post-atomic age when communism was spreading and science was explaining more about our natural world than ever before….Scientific advancement isn’t just making people question God, it’s also connecting those who question. It’s easy to find atheist and agnostic discussion groups online, even if you come from a religious family or community. And anyone who wants the companionship that might otherwise come from church can attend a secular Sunday Assembly or one of a plethora of Meetups for humanists, atheists, agnostics, or skeptics.The presumptive authority of science, and its appearance of being able to explain reality, drives much of the trend toward secularism. But is science a false god?“Big Science is broken” shouts a headline on April 18 by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry in The Week. “That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part.” Both articles present devastating critiques of science that should be required reading before continuing here. Science is not only failing to live up to its ideals; it’s incapable of doing so. It is not self-correcting. It does not have a superior methodology. It’s not reliable, and many of its claims are downright false. In theory and in practice, Gobry and Wilson show, science is a broken reed to lean on.Even Nature joined in singing the dirge of science, undermining one of its greatest claims to reliability. “Peer review is broken from the start,” the headline reads in a piece recounting the history of peer review starting with William Whewell. Did you know that peer review was never a rock-solid practice, and is of rather recent invention?‘Peer review’ was a term borrowed from the procedures that government agencies used to decide who would receive financial support for scientific and medical research. When ‘referee systems’ turned into ‘peer review’, the process became a mighty public symbol of the claim that these powerful and expensive investigators of the natural world had procedures for regulating themselves and for producing consensus, even though some observers quietly wondered whether scientific referees were up to this grand calling.Current attempts to reimagine peer review rightly debate the psychology of bias, the problem of objectivity, and the ability to gauge reliability and importance, but they rarely consider the multilayered history of this institution. Peer review did not develop simply out of scientists’ need to trust one another’s research. It was also a response to political demands for public accountability. To understand that other practices of scientific judgement were once in place ought to be a part of any responsible attempt to chart a future path. The imagined functions of this institution are in flux, but they were never as fixed as many believe.And that’s one of the milder critiques of peer review that have been written in recent years. Some scientists view it as a kind of good-old-boy’s club that keeps young mavericks out of getting published. Others claim that the only reviewers in some narrow fields are an author’s rivals, who have a vested interest in either stealing ideas or preventing them from getting exposure. And peer review often fails to catch even simple errors.New Scientist to the rescue! “Science isn’t as solid as it should be – but science can fix it” reads their headline. Is this the fox guarding the henhouse, or the pigs vowing to reform Animal Farm? Visualize the pigs reporting to a worried press:If there is a sub-prime problem in science, then scientists are doing their best to fix it before it brings the whole edifice down. Unlike those politicians or bankers, they are not turning a blind eye, covering their own backsides or simply hoping to get away with it.I.e., we promise to do better. This is not comforting, coming from the very people who created the crisis in the first place.Are scientists different from other people? New Scientist just said that science is like any other walk of life, with its share of bad apples. But another myth is that scientists are qualitatively different from other people, like artists. David Pearson on The Conversation explodes that myth. How long has that false dichotomy led to misconceptions about the scientific mind?Teaching falsehoods: Indications are growing that neo-Darwinism is on the way out. In “The evolution of teaching evolution,” Melissa McCartney in Science Magazine warns that science education based on natural selection alone is not with the times; “other evolutionary processes” need to be added, but students are not getting those in the curriculum. More importantly, Science Magazine reports that a big new grant from the Templeton Foundation has been awarded for an “evolution rethink,” implying that neo-Darwinism has its own missing links. If so, what has been taught dogmatically since the Scopes Trial 90 years ago is flawed. Elizabeth Pennisi reports on the emotional reaction of Darwinians to threats their pet theory is not the whole shebang. How rational is this response?For many evolutionary biologists, nothing gets their dander up faster than proposing that evolution is anything other than the process of natural selection, acting on random mutations. Suggestions that something is missing from that picture—for example, that evolution is somehow directed or that genetic changes can’t fully explain it—play into the hands of creationists, who leap on them as evidence against evolution itself.No wonder some evolutionary biologists are uneasy with an $8.7 million grant to U.K., Swedish, and U.S. researchers for experimental and theoretical work intended to put a revisionist view of evolution, the so-called extended evolutionary synthesis, on a sounder footing. Using a variety of plants, animals, and microbes, the researchers will study the possibility that organisms can influence their own evolution and that inheritance can take place through routes other than the genetic material.Are scientists closer in touch with reality? Are they more logical than other people? Read about the views of cognitive scientist David Hoffman on Quanta Magazine. In “The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality” Amanda Gefter treats his self-refuting view with soft gloves. The guy “uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.” If we are all evolved, we have no way to connect with reality, he argues. We live in a world of illusion, and “we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.” Did he think that through? How did he escape his own illusion to tell us about ours?He refutes his own thesis in another way. Here is his magnificent rebuttal of so-called “evolutionary epistemology,” the notion that natural selection drove us to connect with reality for our own survival fitness.The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.Did he think that one through? This means that he has no way of justifying what he just said about what evolution did. According to his own words, there cannot be any “fundamental fact about evolution” whatsoever. It’s all illusion. To pretend he can step outside of his own illusion and speak any fact at all about science, evolution or his own consciousness, he would have to be diagnosed with a severe case of the Yoda complex delusion.This is the logic of someone who celebrates science. Hoffman, a self-professed son of a minister, left theism for this: nothing is real, except for his own experience. For all he knows, aliens could be operating his brain in a vat. Asked what this means for science, he answers:The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what’s going on? Here’s how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you’ve had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it’s relevantly similar to mine. That’s an assumption that could be false, but that’s the source of my communication, and that’s the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective science.He blames science itself for this conclusion. But if it is so, how can Hoffman even know that quantum mechanics dictates that there are no publicly accessible objects? Worse, how can he claim that science is “the best we can do”? None of these words have any meaning if his view is taken seriously. Everything is nonsense disconnected from reality, a meaningless chain of personal experiences. It reduces to solipsism, the bitter end of secular science.For you “nones” out there, you atheists and agnostics who have been worshiping Darwin at the altar of science, you need some serious, serious deprogramming. The only thing that makes science possible is realism that can be defended ontologically as the reliable perception of a mind. Mind cannot emerge from particles. It requires a prior cause similar to, but greater than, the human mind, that is reliable and truthful. Theism is, therefore, the necessary foundation for science, as so many great scientists believed. And not just any theism will do: the Creator must be truthful, moral, and unchanging. That leaves you few options. Science without the God who is Real, who created us and our world, who endowed us with rational thought, implodes on itself. Only Bible believers can justify science. Everyone else is in dreamland. Follow the map back to the real world.(Visited 55 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Le Clos stuns Phelps, wins Olympic gold

first_imgThe racePhelps took it out fast over the first 50 metres and led Le Clos by 0.09 seconds as they turned. At 100 metres, he had extended his advantage to 0.27 seconds. With 50 metres to go, at the last turn, Le Clos had slipped to third behind Phelps and Matsuda, 0.58 seconds behind the American. South Africa’s Chad le Clos stunned 200 metres butterfly king Michael Phelps in London on Tuesday night, snatching gold to end the American legend’s attempt to win a third successive Olympic title in his signature event. Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material Anxiously looking towards the scoreboard afterwards, Le Clos saw the amazing result and joyously smashed the water with his fist before letting out a loud yell of triumph. He pointed towards the crowd to acknowledge his mother and father and the South African support. Once the music stopped, Le Clos’ face broke into a wide grin. His father, with a South African flag draped around his head, used it to dab away tears, his mother mouthed: “I love you.” And South Africa celebrated another wonderful victory in the swimming pool at the 2012 London Olympic Games. Phelps, the most successful Olympian in history, with 15 gold medals and 19 medals in total after the evening’s programme (he later won gold in the 4 by 200m freestyle relay), had won every Olympic Games and World Championships 200 metres butterfly title for over a decade. “I can’t believe I beat him in the final. It is something that I’ve lived over in my mind a million times. I’m still shocked that I’ve won. I can’t believe it.” 1 August 2012 In the final, those three men, swimming in the lanes three, four, and five battled it out for the title. The scale of his achievementThen it seemed to hit him as the scale of his achievement began to make sense. Le Clos shook his head in wide-eyed disbelief, holding his head in his hands for a moment. Tears welled in his eyes.center_img For the 20-year-old South African, a dream had come true and he had beaten his hero. Le Clos had entered the Olympics, acknowledging that Rio 2016 would probably be where he would be able to best challenge for Olympic medals. Suddenly, he had beaten the most successful Olympian of all time in that man’s strongest event! “It’s a dream come true. Michael Phelps is an idol to me and he still is,” Le Clos said after the race. ‘WHAT A FINISH!!!’South Africa’s other golden boy, 100 metres breaststroke champion Cameron van der Burgh, who wrote on Twitter before the race: “More nervous for Chad’s race than mine!!! Come on my boy!!!”, followed that posting up with “CHAD LE CLOS!!!!!!! WHAT A FINISH!!!” “It’s crazy!” he added. Le Clos was the second fastest qualifier for the final after setting an African record of 1:54.34 in the semi-finals. Japan’s Takeshi Matsuda, a bronze medal winner in the 200m butterfly in Beijing four years earlier, was fastest in 1:54.25. Phelps, meanwhile, won his semi-final in 1:54.53. Later, standing on top of the Olympic podium, gold medal around his neck, Le Clos struggled to sing the national anthem as tears filled his eyes. No worry, he had plenty of South African supporters singing it full of gusto as they celebrated his superb victory. Phelps came up just short of the wall with his stroke and Le Clos burst past to out-touch him in 1:52.96 to shatter his previous best time, which he had set in the semi-finals. Phelps finished in 1:53.01 and Matsuda in 1:53.21. The chasing pair fought back hard, however, and in the last 25 metres Le Clos and Matsuda closed on the great American with a furious finish.last_img read more

LOOK: Scottie Thompson turns dream into reality with new home

first_imgLATEST STORIES MOST READ From Dream to Reality🙏🏼 Always thank the lord for the gift of life🙏🏼 pic.twitter.com/qCttWnqaQx— Scottie Thompson (@ScotThompson06) April 17, 2019 Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Ethel Booba twits Mocha over 2 toilets in one cubicle at SEA Games venue Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anew Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles Warriors, Spurs try to forget blown chances for 2-0 leads Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. READ: WATCH: A day in the life of Ginebra’s Scottie ThompsonIt’s no surprise that Thompson, who turned pro in 2015, was able to turn his dream into a reality at the age of 25.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logistics SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Philippine Arena Interchange inaugurated Hontiveros presses for security audit of national power grid MANILA, Philippines—PBA star Scottie Thompson proudly showed the fruits of his labor, giving everyone a glimpse of his new home.Thompson, who in his few years in the PBA has established himself as one of the league’s elite guard, has always been business savvy, putting up several business ventures in the past few years.ADVERTISEMENT “Always thank the lord for the gift of life,” said Thompson in his Twitter post, which also included photos of his swanky new crib.Thompson and the Ginebra Gin Kings took an early vacation in the 2019 PBA Philippine Cup after a quarterfinals loss to Magnolia.ADVERTISEMENT Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss View commentslast_img read more

Spaniards with little to cheer for in Champions League final

first_imgLATEST STORIES MOST READ Ethel Booba twits Mocha over 2 toilets in one cubicle at SEA Games venue After dominating in the domestic competitions in recent years, Barcelona turned its focus on trying to win the Champions League again. It last won the competition in 2015, when it defeated Juventus in the final in Berlin.Barcelona cruised through a group that included finalist Tottenham, Inter Milan and PSV Eindhoven, winning four matches and drawing two to end six points ahead in first place. It also didn’t face major difficulties as it got past Lyon in the round of 16 and Manchester United in the quarterfinals, being able to make it to the semifinals after three straight eliminations in the last eight.The team’s dominance continued in the first leg of the semifinals against Liverpool, when it won 3-0 at the Camp Nou and looked set to finally return to the final. But the team collapsed in England, losing 4-0 to see its title hopes vanish.“We are still recovering from what happened in Liverpool. At least I am,” Lionel Messi said last week. “Our performance was lamentable. It was a very tough loss for us.”REAL MADRIDThe three-time defending champions never really got close to making it to the final.In a frustrating season that included two coaching changes, Real Madrid couldn’t advance past the round of 16 in the European competition, being eliminated after a demoralizing 4-1 loss to Ajax at the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium.It had won its group against Roma, Viktoria Plzen and CSKA Moscow, but its campaign included consecutive losses to CSKA — 1-0 in Russia and 3-0 at the Bernabeu.The early Champions League elimination led to the return of coach Zinedine Zidane, who was at the helm when the club won its last three European titles.ATLETICO MADRID There was at least one Spanish club in seven of the last 10 Champions League finals.This time, tough, as the Spanish capital prepares to host its first final since Inter Milan defeated Bayern Munich at the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium in 2010, Spanish clubs are already starting to plan their offseason.On Saturday, there are only two Spanish players with a chance of playing in the final — Tottenham forward Fernando Llorente and Liverpool defender Alberto Moreno.Here’s a look at some of the reasons why there won’t be any Spanish clubs in this year’s final in Madrid:BARCELONAADVERTISEMENT ‘Rebel attack’ no cause for concern-PNP, AFP Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting The all-English matchup will be the first Champions League final without a Spanish club since 2013, when Bayern Munich defeated Borussia Dortmund in a match between German teams.Since then, Real Madrid made it to the final four times, Atletico Madrid twice and Barcelona once.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logistics“We were used to seeing Real Madrid in the final all these years,” said Francisco Javier Diaz de Castro, a 55-year-old Real Madrid supporter. “It’s a weird feeling to think that this time we won’t see it fighting for the Champions League trophy. When we finally get to watch the final in Madrid, the team struggles and can’t make it. I guess that’s how it goes in soccer.”Real Madrid won four titles in its recent streak, beating Atletico in 2014 and 2016, Juventus in 2017 and Liverpool in 2018. Barcelona lifted the trophy in 2015, and it had also won it in 2006, 2009 and 2011. Two-day strike in Bicol fails to cripple transport Catholic schools seek legislated pay hike, too After four straight seasons reaching at least the quarterfinals, Atletico was coming off a disappointing group-stage elimination and was hopeful of playing in the final again at its own stadium.It qualified from a group that included Borussia Dortmund, Club Brugge and Monaco, but the draw for the round of 16 set up an encounter against Juventus and old foe Cristiano Ronaldo. Things went well in the first leg, with the Spanish team winning 2-0 at home, but Ronaldo thrived in the return match, scoring a hat trick in a 3-0 win that ended Atletico’s hopes.VALENCIAValencia was the only other Spanish club in the Champions League this season, and it couldn’t get past a group that included Juventus, Manchester United and Young Boys. It finished third, ahead only of the Swiss club.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next DA eyes importing ‘galunggong’ anew Naomi Osaka plays Azaranka in matchup of current and former No. 1s Sports venues to be ready in time for SEA Games PLAY LIST 00:59Sports venues to be ready in time for SEA Games01:27Filipino athletes get grand send-off ahead of SEA Games00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess Pedestrians walk past Champions League banner in downtown Madrid, Spain, Wednesday, May 29, 2019. Madrid will be hosting the final again after nearly a decade, but the country’s streak of having at least one team playing for the European title ended this year after five straight seasons, giving home fans little to cheer for when Tottenham faces Liverpool at the Wanda Metropolitano Stadium on Saturday. (AP Photo/Tales Azzoni)MADRID — It will be an unusual Champions League final for Spain.Madrid will be hosting the final again after nearly a decade, but the country’s streak of having at least one team playing for the European title ended this year after five straight seasons, giving home fans little to cheer for when Liverpool faces Tottenham at the Wanda Metropolitano Stadium on Saturday.ADVERTISEMENT PDEA chief backs Robredo in revealing ‘discoveries’ on drug war Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. View commentslast_img read more

Poems That Make Grown Women Cry

first_imgFollowing the success of their anthology Poems That Make Grown Men Cry, father-and-son team Anthony and Ben Holden, working with Amnesty International, have asked the same revealing question of 100 remarkable women: What poem has moved you to tears?From Yoko Ono to Judi Dench, Annie Lennox to Vanessa Redgrave, Carol Ann Duffy to Kaui Hart Hemmings, and Joan Baez to Nikki Giovanni, this unique collection delivers private insights into the minds of women whose writing, acting, and thinking are admired around the world.Poems That Make Grown Women Cry is emblematic not just of the human struggle to make a difference, but of women’s ongoing efforts for equality. It is a celebration of poetry’s age-old power as a means of sharing feelings, thoughts and hope, sparking inspiration and aspiration to truth, justice and freedom.The poems chosen range from the eighth century to today, from Rumi and Shakespeare to Sylvia Plath, W. H. Auden to Carol Ann Duffy, Pablo Neruda and Derek Walcott to Imtiaz Dharker and Warsan Shire. Their themes range from love and loss, through mortality and mystery, war and peace, to the beauty and variety of nature.Find out more about the book here.last_img read more