Reframing policy issues as questions of objective “science” makes it easier to justify relying on “experts”, thereby enfeebling democratic institutions in favor of bureaucratic systems.
Read More ›
Community notes are usually the fate of people who pass on debunked or fake news. But Nature took that risk with its surprising approach to the Jason Arday tragedy/scandal.
Read More ›
It would be a means of controlling who is allowed to “do” science and the ability to determine what can be communicated to the public.
Read More ›
The challenge, moving on, is that better scholarship means listening to those who challenge conventional ideas instead of serially editing them.
Read More ›
When the young people inherit the world, they can start getting tough with misuse and abuse but first they should take the time to learn how it works.
Read More ›
Intellectual diversity is a key reason the public is expected to heed (and often pay for) universities. Apart from that, a university would not differ from a sect.
Read More ›
At one time, it was the less well-informed people who trusted science less. But repeated episodes like the Covid Crazy will mean that the better informed people will trust less.
Read More ›
Siegel’s essay at Big Think can have one very desirable result: It is a good, though unwitting, summary of attitudes that must change if public trust in science is to be improved.
Read More ›
If being a scientist means that one must refuse to consider the evidence for design, it’s no wonder if many are looking for alternatives.
Read More ›
I’m sure the authors of these papers didn’t mean to pay ID any compliments, but everything we’ve seen here closely tracks with intelligent design literature.
Read More ›
Explainaways protect the system from unwanted evidence by ignoring or dismissing it. But when the weight of such evidence grows, they stop sounding persuasive.
Read More ›
Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on a computer chip doubles about every two years. But Moore’s Law must eventually stop at the Planck length.
Read More ›
Without this conviction there is no logical ground for supporting human rights in the United States or elsewhere; there is no logical ground for human rights at all.
Read More ›
The people who do not trust science today would probably like to be able to. And the people who do trust it may simply be unaware of the problems.
Read More ›
Materialist theories intended to explain away NDEs need only sound plausible and scientific; they need not enlighten. A new one will be along shortly anyway.
Read More ›
A downloadable audio file is available from Humanize of an interview with Olivier Bonnassies, author with Michel-Yves Bolloré of God: the Science, the Evidence (2025).
Read More ›
Some factors blamed are a “publish or perish” culture, lax oversight, secrecy, and the low status of research integrity officers (RIOs).
Read More ›
If more scientists follow Anna Krylov’s lead in simply severing ties from journals that are being politicized, reform may follow.
Read More ›
We seem a long way now from the once-dominant science view of eliminative materialism in which even human consciousness was not considered real.
Read More ›
The reason medical researchers now take NDEs seriously is a growing body of evidence that can’t just be tossed off with a simple explanation.
Read More ›