Surely people in science need to recommit themselves to first principles like mathematics as a form of truth and evidence as the basis of biology.
Read More ›
When even science mags are not trashing near-death researchers, critics who just assume it’s all bunk should really just get out more.
Read More ›
Real science is currently under siege, pummeled by conspiracy nuts and undermined internally by a replication crisis created by sloppy science.
Read More ›
Neither popular media nor science media now play a traditional role as evaluators and critics of elite groups’ claims on behalf of a broad public.
Read More ›
I can’t think of anything more harmful to people’s respect for “science” than hysterical scientists in (say) lab coats.
Read More ›
By David Klinghoffer By now the authority of science has been thoroughly abused. For that, you can thank scientists themselves, their promoters in government bodies and in university PR departments, and the legions of loyal pilot fish in popular and social media. Something really came undone in the Covid era. Today, the phrase “science says” or “doctors say” prompts a smirk from about half the population, and rightly so. To capture this reality, mathematician David Berlinski in his latest book, Science After Babel, evokes the image of Bruegel’s Tower of Babel — a bloated, vain enterprise, in denial of its own failings. The ancients saw science, and the other arts, as embodied by muses — beautiful young women. We may picture something more Read More ›
What’s really interesting is that all these neuroscientists see panpsychism as just as much of a threat to easy abortion as traditional monotheistic ethics is.
Read More ›
Robert J. Marks, host of the Mind Matters podcast, recently put out an article at Newsmax discussing “scientific consensus,” and how that term has been used to bully dissenting scientific viewpoints and even establish political and social policy. Marks writes, Consensus was used as a reason to stifle debate during the COVID crisis. Facebook and YouTube saw opposition to the government narrative as disinformation. Posts against consensus were censored and users were banned. Pre-Musk Twitter had a policy concerning tweets about climate change: “Misleading advertisements on #Twitter that contradict the scientific consensus on #climatechange are prohibited, in line with its inappropriate content policy.” The word pairing “scientific consensus” is a destructive science-stifling oxymoron. -Robert J. Marks, Consensus Doesn’t Equal Science | Newsmax.com Read More ›
In their Discussion, the authors conclude, “The recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine empirical investigation without prejudice.”
Read More ›
Can Goff get science gatekeepers to accept fine-tuning simply by slamming traditional religion? If he does, we will certainly know that things are changing.
Read More ›
Severing the discourse from true scientific objectivity could mean that legitimate research will be stifled.
Read More ›
One reason there can’t be Final Answers in science is that the questions keep changing as we learn more, and in some cases we are asking the wrong ones.
Read More ›
Decades ago, better informed people trusted ongoing science research. Today, “Trust the Science!” is becoming a jibe — and for good reason.
Read More ›
Science has enriched our lives enormously. Publicity stunts like this superconductor fiasco will not help.
Read More ›
When philosophers of science assume agency without an agent and laws without a lawgiver, they fare no better than ancestors placating fickle gods.
Read More ›
With the advent of advanced computing and artificial intelligence, the role of humans in mathematics is getting vague.
Read More ›
Much like the Titanic, and a bit like the Titan, so much was expected at the glorious launch of the experiment in human reasoning.
Read More ›
If scientists thought that life’s origin and nature would soon yield to scientific reductionism, they have been disappointed.
Read More ›
Physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser (pictured) offered some thoughts recently on faith and science, noting that the scientific revolution has hardly changed the picture of faith much: “the great scientific advances of the past four centuries have not radically diminished the number of believers” in transcendent realities: If science is to help us, in the words of the late Carl Sagan, by providing a “candle in the dark,” it will have to be seen in a new light. The first step in this direction is to admit that science has fundamental limitations as a way of knowing, and that it is not the only method of approaching the unattainable truth about reality. Science should be seen as the practice of Read More ›
If we can uncover the smallest quantum particles in nature, will we have uncovered the fundamental secrets of reality? A longstanding philosophical tradition in the sciences claims “yes.” Uncovering the mystery of the world lies in the ability to interrogate the smallest of the small. But is that the right way to approach it? What special status does the tiny have over the large? A paper at IAI News by London philosopher Peter West argues that reality can’t in fact be elucidated simply by observing quantum mechanics. He talks in some length about the 17th century text Micrographia by Robert Hooke, which features various images of insects and other organisms under the microscope. West notes that Hooke set the stage, Read More ›