In my last column, I confessed that my personal feelings toward proponents of a scientific claim affect my judgment of the claim.
Posts published in “Opinion”
Eora 3D’s developers ran into a problem: Finding an affordable yet effective 3D scanner. Unable to find one, they have decided to create one themselves.
Last Saturday I was half-sick, half-exhausted, and when I finally woke up, none of my roommates were around. The evening was quiet, except for the intermittent bursts of cheering capped off by a loud, repeating horn.
If my previous columns stirred up some controversy, I apologize in advance for the waves I am about to make.
Let’s take a moment to talk about school spirit at Stevens.
As a newly elected member of the Honor Board, I have come to learn many of the fine details of the board and how it is run, along with how each meeting is conducted.
Thanks to the advent of music recording software that’s as accessible as the channels to distribute the latest Hot Track, it’s seemingly easy to drown in the river of new tunes these days.
I am going to preface the following analysis by stating that I am focusing on one specific question that I felt wasn’t answered.
The SGA presidential debate Wednesday night was hardly a debate. For those who didn’t see it, most of the night was spent with the two tickets agreeing with eachother on virtually every point.
I am at a pretty interesting crossroads in my life, and I know that my current situation is not at all unique.
Assessing scientific claims is hard enough when you stick to empirical evidence. When personal factors intrude, which they invariably do, such assessments get even trickier.