tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1939847801096263189..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Why plumbing ain’t scienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76601623045121377522013-01-19T05:54:00.336-05:002013-01-19T05:54:00.336-05:00the thread to my most recent 5-minute Philosopher ...the thread to my most recent 5-minute Philosopher video. And of course the title of this entry is a reference to Jerry Coyne’s occasional remark that there is no substantial difference between plumbing and science because plumbers test hypotheses based on empirical evidence. <a href="http://www.chinohillsplumbing.net/" rel="nofollow">plumber in chino hills</a><br />Sammyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13182526765240519199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71515673238855228972010-12-13T12:37:34.364-05:002010-12-13T12:37:34.364-05:00We're Here Because We're Here
http://www....We're Here Because We're Here<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ps85649fWk&feature=player_embeddedBaron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19873947113779451402010-12-12T21:27:36.895-05:002010-12-12T21:27:36.895-05:00I grew up indoctrinated as a believer in Christian...I grew up indoctrinated as a believer in Christianity. To move to unbelief requires a significant transformation away from the forms of assurance present in a fundamentalistic faith in a god who saves. There is a feeling of walking along a precipice between madness and hopelessness.<br /><br />One of the most fearful aspects for someone coming from fundamentalism to reason, is the inability of reason to explain everything. I think everyone who reasons has to face the fact that certain why questions are beyond our ability to answer completely with the current methods of reason.<br /><br />Instead of the word god we use phrases like common sense, self evident, or agreed assumptions. These and other phrases are holding places for things we haven't exactly worked out.<br /><br />I think there is this idea that eventually science, using a vast enough data base of knowledge, will be able to predict every choice and event from some type of cause and effect relationship. I call this a mechanistic view of the universe.<br /><br />I think religion is often a rebellion against this idea. I think we would rather feel like we really do have a choice and there is truly some type of subjective reality that doesn't have to follow a cause and effect that has predetermined everything that will happen.<br /><br />I certainly hope that life does have meaning and there is a way to determine value independent of reason. That something like love has value simply because we are convicted to value it.<br /><br />I have to honestly say that I don't know. I don't find it likely at all that there is a god, like the one described in the Bible, running the whole show. But, living without much of a clue about why we are here, if there is even a why, does present a challenge.Richard Hartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01308270901432923724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6225917847487035722010-12-11T03:09:41.078-05:002010-12-11T03:09:41.078-05:00Massimo, While the general tone of your post in so...Massimo, While the general tone of your post in some ways reflects my own thoughts, some criticisms and clarifications would seem to be in order. I will try to be brief and address key points individually. <br /> <br />1. Science (previously "natural philosophy") is, without question, a sub-set of Philosophy.<br />2. Its defining feature is the assumption that the information provided to us by our senses (and extensions thereof) are valid, meaningful and properly represent an external world.<br />There are, of course, illusions, but these can be picked up in the light of more extensive observations).<br />3. The sensory data (at whatever level of sophistication - mass spectrometry, for instance) are of no use without some means of processing, analysis and integration. For this, of course, we use the tools of language. These include natural languages, logic and mathematics. The last being appropriate for handling concepts at the very simplest level.<br />4. There is a view held by some that mathematics itself a science. This is quite wrong.<br />Although it can be argued to have an early basis in sensory information, it is simply a language, which, in the same way as natural language, is capable of generating fictions.<br />The wheat being sorted from the chaff by further observation, ideally in a controlled situation.<br />5. You point out, quite properly, that there are no sharp demarcation lines between science and non-science. Unfortunately, you completely miss out an enormously important area which lies at the centre of that spectrum. And that is engineering! And this is the part of the spectrum occupied by the plumber and the surgeon, as well as many flavours of engineer. <br />6. The growth of modern science has been almost entirely dependent upon the evolution of technology.<br />The telescope, the microscope, UV source for spectroscopy, the thermionic valve and CRT, even the test tube are all products of technology, of the art of the engineer. (Incidentally, you may have noticed that they are also dependent on glass, one of the "just right" materials that enable, and it can be argued, made inevitable, the evolution of technology - a particular interest of mine and the theme of my recent work "The Goldilocks Effect and, largely, my previous "Unusual Perspectives") <br />7. Modern science and engineering are, of course, interdependent, one feeding the other and there is considerable overlap. However, it should be noted that technology has historically been the precursor. The chemical arts of food processing and the extraction of metals from their ores, for example, were in place long before the the establishment of the science of chemistry around the 18th century. <br />8. Science as such has actually very little impact on society. Society, in general, has not the slightest understanding of science. It is technology which impacts upon society and it does this mostly as a result of the artifacts that it generates. Pseudoscience does not feed through to the generation of useful artifacts. It is not stymied by the words of any philosopher but rather by its own inadequacy to relate to the real world. An exception is the field of alternative medicine where there is a good living to be made from all sorts of bizarre practices - all of which appear sometimes to "work". Why? Because folk recover naturally from various ailments all the time. If such a recovery occurs during a "treatment" the practitioner gets the credit. In the absense of contolled analyses, chance alone feeds the flames.<br />9.. It is true that, in a very trivial way, we are all scientists. More importantly, at a practical level, the sciences and their technological symbiotes are almost universally trusted. The worlds religious leaders show greater trust in aerodynamics than in the power of prayer for transcontinental excursions. Even they, at heart, are scientists. It's part of the human condition.Cognosiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14556412288134268451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59997375728357400672010-12-08T18:18:20.722-05:002010-12-08T18:18:20.722-05:00Massimo,
Yes, the disagreements are much smaller ...Massimo,<br /><br />Yes, the disagreements are much smaller than the vitriol that sometimes comes up may indicate. What remains to be addressed at some point is whether defining supernatural as "arbitrarily allowed to make ad-hoc evasions" is helpful for anything or an accurate description of how the vast majority of people actually define it. As I wrote in a comment over at Apple Eaters:<br /><br /><i>In reality, believers expect their gods to be reliable, otherwise, what is the point? And in reality, they believe that they have evidence of a kind for their position, although usually fraught with selection bias and circular reasoning if you look closer. If you look closer, they will of course suddenly claim capriciousness, but hey, so does a crystal ball gazer if pressed. Does not mean that they do not make claims of reliability to their customers once you have your back turned to them!</i><br /><br />And of course I could just as well have used the example of a snake oil salesman or conspiracy theorist instead of the crystal ball gazer.<br /><br />Perhaps it would behoove us at some time in the future to collect empirical evidence, like a survey of religious people about how reliable they believe their gods, prayers and magic to be, what evidence they cite for their position, and so on.<br /><br />Dave,<br /><br />I am not sure if that is possible, because as far as I understand math and logic really do not deal only with things that actually observably happen in our universe - just think of forty-dimensional spaces - but with all things that must necessarily follow from certain assumptions or axioms. But well, I am not a mathematician, so an actual mathematician's input would be more useful here than mine.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14061443713730743452010-12-08T13:58:32.006-05:002010-12-08T13:58:32.006-05:00Very interesting post, Massimo.
I think the Greek...Very interesting post, Massimo.<br /><br />I think the Greek practice of splitting what we would lump together under "knowledge" into "techne" and "episteme" is helpful. Plumbing would give us technical knowledge, and to the extent that it is a scientific practice at all it is so only in that it applies established principles to present problems. Practices that aim at techne have a theory behind them, but they aren't concerned with theory. <br /><br />Science as Massimo describes it is seeking episteme-- not just the solution to problems (although there is that), but also a theoretical structure for finding things out.Oyster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09936291209976465040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39279580281800977952010-12-08T08:38:24.639-05:002010-12-08T08:38:24.639-05:00Richard, Alex,
I haven't changed my position ...Richard, Alex,<br /><br />I haven't changed my position at all, I think you guys took me more literally in the past than I intended, hence this post to further clarify my thoughts. And I still think the supernatural cannot be investigated by science because it's too darn vague and incoherent. Even there, however, I never maintained a sharp demarcation. For instance, if you think of astrology or parapsychology as investigating natural but unknown phenomena then science is the way to do it. But if they present supernatural characteristics (like the tendency of paranormal phenomena not to manifest themselves when there are skeptics around), they slide toward the supernatural and therefore the vague enough that science can't do much about them. And of course, as I said repeatedly, I don't see this as a weakness of science, but as a result of the incoherence and extreme malleability and arbitrary character of supernatural claims.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82950550047713717122010-12-08T06:25:54.539-05:002010-12-08T06:25:54.539-05:00Josh, I agree with a lot of what you've writte...Josh, I agree with a lot of what you've written above. In particular, I agree that Massimo appears to have changed his view (or been inconsistent). He has in the past taken a much narrower view of science when arguing that science cannot address supernatural claims. But, in today's OP, he has rightly taken a much fuzzier and broader view (though probably not as fuzzy and broad as mine).<br /><br />I think the reason why "science" is such a fuzzy concept is because there are so many different factors involved in our decision to label something "science". It has to with the subject matter, the type of evidence, the precision of the hypotheses, the testability of the hypotheses, the degree to which the discourse is public, whether results are peer-reviewed, the solidity of the inferences, etc. Most of these are matters of degree, not binary alternatives, so involve a subjective judgement of where to draw the line. And with so many factors to take into account, we have to make subjective judgements about their relative significance. So competent, well-informed speakers can reasonably disagree over when the label "science" is appropriate.<br /><br />Some people respond to this fuzziness by giving up altogether on making any distinction between science and other areas of rational empirical enquiry, taking "science" to mean "rational empirical enquiry" (and perhaps even dropping the "empirical" so as to include mathematics). I suppose you could adopt that as a technical definition, but it's not what the word normally means. People do not normally call history (or plumbing) a science. The alternative is simply to acknowledge the fact that science is a very fuzzy concept, that there's a big overlap between science and philosophy, and stop worrying so much about categorising questions as "science" or "philosophy".<br /><br />Nevertheless, Josh, I think your plan to eliminate the words "science" and "philosophy" altogether is unworkable. The subjects that philosophers study do require a certain set of skills and knowledge which are different from other areas of rational enquiry, even if there is a considerable overlap. So you'd still need a label for what are today called philosophers, and you may as well keep the label "philosophers" and call their field of enquiry "philosophy".<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with retaining the word "philosophy" as long as we don't fetishize it. This is where Julia's point comes in, about why we're making the distinction in the first place. If the purpose is to have labels for referring to fuzzily defined (but somewhat distinctive) groups of skills and questions, and to the people who specialize in them, then it's a useful distinction. It's useful to have departments of philosophy, journals of philosophy, degrees in philosophy, etc. What isn't useful is to make such a fuss over whether to label a question "science" or "philosophy". Worse, this leads to artificial and unjustified rules like "science can't say anything about supernatural claims". This leads in turn to bad arguments against Intelligent Design ("ID can't be science because it's supernatural") which play into the hands of ID advocates.<br /><br />I suppose you could just eliminate the word "science", so philosophy, physics, chemistry, history, etc, would all simply be considered branches of "rational empirical enqiry", without physics and chemistry being grouped together under a narrower heading like "science". But I can't see such a scheme being adopted, because I think there are some ways in which the formal sciences are more closely connected to each other than they are to philosophy.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55469621144910185972010-12-08T04:27:56.051-05:002010-12-08T04:27:56.051-05:00Alex SL:
- as opposed to that which has to be tru...Alex SL:<br /><br /><i>- as opposed to that which has to be true in every possible universe, which is the domain of math and at least a good portion of philosophy, certainly logic. </i><br /><br />While I'm with you about 92% percent of the way, not sure that you can say the domain of mathematics covers all possible universes. Suppose an operator fails (to make sense) in one particular universe? I know perhaps the theory needs to be expanded, tweaked etc to account for findings in the problematic universe, but to me math is about symbols, and symbol failure implies a separate kind of mathematics is required. <br /><br />In other words, it seems possible that two kinds of set theories exist.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44795400103717930222010-12-07T20:56:23.594-05:002010-12-07T20:56:23.594-05:00several people keep trying to find a silver bullet...<i>several people keep trying to find a silver bullet, a clear-cut demarcation that sets aside science from everything else</i><br /><br />Really? Interesting. And here was me thinking some people were trying to find a clear-cut demarcation that science is not allowed to step over, with certain questions about the universe situated beyond that border.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7244225698676490512010-12-07T18:26:16.898-05:002010-12-07T18:26:16.898-05:00Phil, the problem here is that several people keep...Phil, the problem here is that several people keep trying to find a silver bullet, a clear-cut demarcation that sets aside science from everything else. As I point out in the essay, that's a waste of time. But the lack of clear demarcation doesn't mean that there are no significant differences. So, for instance, a graduate student who is simply repeating someone else's research should not be allowed to graduate. He tried, but failed, to do novel science. But he was certainly *trying* to do science, much more than the 3rd grader. I hope this helps.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32517161223065842322010-12-07T18:14:32.382-05:002010-12-07T18:14:32.382-05:00For the record, I'm not one of the people atte...For the record, I'm not one of the people attempting to expand "science" to include plumbing. I'm inquiring to see how far Massimo's version of science goes. <br /><br />For example, one of the the defining things that seems to be getting clearer is some attempt to expand on current scientific knowledge. This would take care of some 3rd grader being able to "do science." What about a grad/doctoral student who is trying to duplicate some complex scientific study that is generally considered to be well established? If all (s)he is doing is duplication, Massimo, would you this to no longer fall under the term "science"?Phil Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825236022102176191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26280108330573368942010-12-07T17:13:04.174-05:002010-12-07T17:13:04.174-05:00Massimo: I have posted several times in the previo...Massimo: I have posted several times in the previous thread, but I am not sure which exact post you would be referring to.Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83504804875247785402010-12-07T17:00:57.566-05:002010-12-07T17:00:57.566-05:00Ritchie, crap, can't find it! Did I imagine it...Ritchie, crap, can't find it! Did I imagine it, or was it on a different thread?<br /><br />Tyro, well, I too would expect plumbers to abide by empirical evidence. But I do think that "science" in the proper sense is not just a set of methods, but also a cumulative set of findings, and yes, a particular social structure. It doesn't have to be done in universities, but it ain't done in elementary schools either. And I thought I did respond to the Mythbusters thing: I think of those shows as demonstrations of scientific reasoning and practice. Again, I don't think even they would claim that they are doing science. But who knows.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29071567004645287492010-12-07T16:44:08.745-05:002010-12-07T16:44:08.745-05:00"Tyro, see Ritchie's response above."..."Tyro, see Ritchie's response above."<br /><br />Massimo, which response are you referring to?Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86742375790945257902010-12-07T16:09:09.115-05:002010-12-07T16:09:09.115-05:00Massimo,
I said I agreed with that so I'm not...Massimo,<br /><br />I said I agreed with that so I'm not sure what you're responding to. <br /><br /><br />I don't think we should expand science but neither do I think it should be restricted based on social structure and form ("white lab coats ONLY") lest we create a science cargo cult. What seems to be key to science is the method, the recognition of human biases and attempts to remove/account for them and to value empiricism over authority or revelation.<br /><br />opticradiation asked if the Mythbusters were doing science and I'd wonder the same thing. In many cases they do follow the spirit and method of science without the Ivory Tower form.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying that plumbers are doing science. As far as I can tell, Jerry Coyne never said that either except in a passing comment he said that he expected plumbers to rely on evidence rather than faith.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30102908238436322972010-12-07T15:53:45.015-05:002010-12-07T15:53:45.015-05:00Tyro, this entire essay and discussion should have...Tyro, this entire essay and discussion should have made clear that I think it is ridiculous to claim that plumbing, or crossing the street, or pretty much anything we do that has empirical content, is "science" in any meaningful, non trivial sense of the term. Obviously, I haven't convinced you, which is fine. The danger here is that the term science becomes essentially meaningless. And I also keep wondering why some people are so insistent in expanding it at all costs. What gives, really?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83833901236232937192010-12-07T15:47:28.841-05:002010-12-07T15:47:28.841-05:00Massimo,
Plumbing is generally about applying kno...Massimo,<br /><br />Plumbing is generally about applying knowledge rather than discovering new things and that alone would say to me it isn't science.<br /><br />However, there is some body of plumbing knowledge - how to handle large buildings, how to vent toxic gasses or noxious odours, etc. To use the horrid expression, science is a "way of knowing", so how else did we build the body of knowledge plumbing requires if not through science?<br /><br />We can also look at how plumbers deal with problems. Some might use reasoning, testing hypotheses and building theories; others might use a dowsing rod or crystals. That doesn't mean they're doing science, but might it mean some are at least scientific?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9603769527646659542010-12-07T15:32:09.805-05:002010-12-07T15:32:09.805-05:00Phil your example captures something important her...Phil your example captures something important here. Yes, the kids are "doing math" in the sense of learning about math and using its techniques. They are not doing math in the sense of discovering anything new. However, I submit that the gap between plumbing and science is wider than that...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23268151673325461382010-12-07T15:28:09.396-05:002010-12-07T15:28:09.396-05:00Massimo,
It would be strange to say that they are...Massimo,<br /><br />It would be strange to say that they are doing any important research by the standards of today's science. But this seems similar to me to saying that elementary school kids don't do math because they aren't doing quadratic equations. Same methodology, varying levels of complexity. If a child does a science project and it is done with the high standards of control and intricacy, however mundane or simple the project, can we not rely on the results of that project with great confidence; more so than some clinical studies that are open to greater levels of interpretation due to the subjective nature of studies like some of those found in psychology for example?Phil Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05825236022102176191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30652582870339653932010-12-07T09:25:07.034-05:002010-12-07T09:25:07.034-05:00Alex - in the book I am writing I talk extensively...Alex - in the book I am writing I talk extensively about the cognitive dissonance that I suffered from as a Christian (in the process of becoming an atheist) when confronted with just these issues. Science proves so much to us empirically that religious dogma says is not true. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying it, God is either illusory or capricious - I don't see a third option.<br /><br />Baron - OK, got it. Trust me, I wanted to write a LOT more about the concepts in every one of the articles I've posted so far and in the book I am writing I am using these articles sort of like introductions. The problem with the place I am writing my articles (for now at least) is that they want the articles to be VERY short (500 words is a goal) and so far I am going at least two or three times that long and even then I feel I am not really developing the ideas nearly well enough.<br /><br />For this reason, and the fact that I am arguing against apologetics, not for it, I am forced to give a very rudimentary explanation of what the argument is (not how it works or how to employ it) and then refute it in the space I have left.<br /><br />hope this all makes sense and thanks very much for the feedback!!<br /><br />VR,<br />TonyTony Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08579223428987581104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85964156227055922002010-12-07T07:59:04.374-05:002010-12-07T07:59:04.374-05:00Phil, elementary school children do science projec...Phil, elementary school children do science projects, not science. Yes, they use some of the same methods, in a simplified fashion. But I think it is strange to argue that they are doing actual science.<br /><br />Tyro, see Ritchie's response above.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45591252310493280262010-12-07T04:08:53.310-05:002010-12-07T04:08:53.310-05:00Tony, I don't believe in a divine creator eith...Tony, I don't believe in a divine creator either, but that wasn't the point. It's that the apologists do, and yet in looking at your article, I saw no new analysis of why any intelligent apologist would. You would want to show the full extent of their reasoning, including more than a few of their assumptions, before attempting to show the reader why the arguments are not convincing.<br />And perhaps in our other articles you did - that's why I was asking.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43022275859491076752010-12-07T01:13:35.114-05:002010-12-07T01:13:35.114-05:00Tony Davis,
This would perhaps be what inspired J...Tony Davis,<br /><br />This would perhaps be what inspired Jerry Coyne to his infamous sentence of science being philosophically inconsistent with faith.<br /><br />I have spoken with several fellow atheist scientists in my life who all agree that this is precisely the weird thing about it: There is one way of finding out things about the world that works - empiricism -, and scientists are specialists in using that approach. They, of all people, should know that it is the only way that works, and they would never tolerate a colleague saying that they believe in, say, the expanding earth hypothesis without very convincing evidence, just because they <i>know it in their heart</i>.<br /><br />And then the very same people who would not tolerate blind faith in their own area of research turn around and blithely believe things on faith or anecdotal stories that directly contradict the scientific results of their colleagues in neurobiology (souls), astrophysics (creator god) or medicine (homeopathy).<br /><br />When I just think about trying to hold our current scientific model of the universe and the idea of, e.g., a creator god in my head at the same time, I feel like my brain wants to leak out of my ears. Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to be able to manage the careful compartmentalization of the mind exhibited by religious scientists. It is widespread enough that it seems nearly like a deficiency not to be able to do it, and maybe in a way it is, but at least I know from the aforementioned conversations that I am not alone in being incapable of it.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81648976880243354672010-12-06T20:37:29.915-05:002010-12-06T20:37:29.915-05:00Professor Pigliucci,
I was sitting in a coffee sh...Professor Pigliucci,<br /><br />I was sitting in a coffee shop today reading this article and something came to me. Probably a blinding flash of the obvious to everyone else here, and I suppose I've thought of it before many times but your use of the plumber here really made it hit me harder than normal. What I am talking about is the reference in paragraph three to how "...the way both practitioners proceed to solve whatever puzzle they need to solve is to use empirical evidence and confront it with their expert knowledge." I am amazed at the number of people engaged in irrational pursuits, be it religion, conspiracy theories, astrology, etc., who are so fast to belittle scientific knowledge but when you consider how they live their lives EVERY DAY empiricism rules. If their toilet floods they don't ask God why, or pray for him to fix it, they call a plumber.<br /><br />VR,<br />TonyTony Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08579223428987581104noreply@blogger.com