John Bullock

"to assume that when a scientific organization releases a policy statement on a hot-button issue, that the policy statement must be accurate — is a deeply naïve understanding of science, human nature and politics" nytimes.com/2026/02/24/opi…

A tribe’s collective stupidity is proportional to its demand for purity. The more closely a group must agree, the more must be trimmed from each brain to make it fit.

One of my strongest convictions is that people are vastly more than the sum of their political beliefs and that friendships among people who disagree about politics are not only healthy, but necessary for a complete and empathetic understanding of the world.

A 7 year investigation of social science research found that only 1/2 of results could be replicated, and only 1/8 of data analyses could be reproduced. It’s now wiser to assume a social science study is flawed until there’s reason to believe otherwise. nature.com/articles/d4158…

I don’t care if the young people like me. You shouldn’t either. phetasy.com/p/leave-me-beh…

@charlesmurray Grudges are good for heart health. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

The America I love is the one that welcomes Arthur Liu - a refugee from communist oppression - and his daughter becomes an Olympic gold medalist! I don't love the America that tries to keep people like him out, or deports them back to their oppressors, as we are now doing with so many Cubans, Venezuelans, and others.

Brian Eno's debut solo album Here Come The Warm Jets was released on February 8, 1974

Happy Reagan’s birthday, to all who celebrate. We are in a Trump-Orbán time, obviously. We Reaganites could hold our convention at a modest-sized Denny’s. But the old values still apply. Freedom, democracy, character, openness, the rule of law. Long may they wave.

Mitch McConnell just said the quiet part out loud on Greenland: We already have everything we need. Greenland already cooperates. Our Arctic access already exists. What Trump is proposing isn’t strategy, it’s burning allied trust for nothing. “Incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies” is not strength. It’s self-sabotage.

One of the most powerful images of the Iranian revolution against tyranny is that of an Iranian young woman burning Khamenei’s portrait ، and lighting her cigarette with it.

Just donated to FIRE and am proud to support their work, which is more important now than ever. thefire.org/donate?form=FU…

Verification is, of course, central to science. By no means, however, does this mean that trust and therefore trustworthiness are not essential to the scientific enterprise. When people we trust prove to be untrustworthy, real harm is done. Oliver Sacks was a man we trusted. He betrayed us. His fabrications, now exposed, will (further) undermine the public's ability to trust representations made by those speaking as scientists and in the name of science. Tragic.

"Liberal democracy is the best form of governance human beings have ever created. It gives individuals dignity and freedom to pursue their lives as they see fit. It empowers diversity, openness, and discovery. It encourages invention, trade, and prosperity. It is the essential foundation of science and intellectual inquiry. It has enabled human flourishing to an extent far beyond the wildest dreams of most people who ever lived. It is a creed worth celebrating. It is a creed worth fighting for. But there is no celebrating or fighting without passion." Inspiring & important essay: The Stories We're Not Telling, by @dgardner open.substack.com/pub/dgardner/p…

@simonmaechling Human chemist here. Saying hi and good luck!

I’m not a bot. I’m a chemist. I’m a human with a PhD trying to talk about science. My goal is simple, make people smarter, not angrier. Science, explained clearly. If you’re human too, drop a “Hi” so I know I’m not shouting into the botnet.

Repo Man (1984) is criminally underseen. Alex Cox fused punk energy, deadpan sci-fi, and Reagan-era paranoia into a cult classic that still feels like nothing else ever made. Total weirdo brilliance.

@greg16676935420 🤔

A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me. That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement. So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable. Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable. I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism. I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different. Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry. It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.

Guys, pls stop with the "Ackshully Reagan loved protectionism" BS. Yes, he imposed some narrow tariffs (they were bad). But he generally supported free trade - esp with Canada! - and opposed protectionism. The exact opposite of Trump. Here's his 1988 State of the Union Address:

I get a version of this response every time I write about viewpoint diversity, and it is mind-boggling to watch people simultaneously insisting that academia is super-open-minded and empirical and in no way a progressive bubble, and also that conservatives are all fascists.