Given the growing power of private truth, the future of science which, like religion, represents public truth is more uncertain than some expect.
Read More ›
Sutter would be better off to worry more when things are called pseudoscience because, despite evidence in their favor, they contradict fashionable thinking.
Read More ›
Materialist science has got about as far as it can go and progress will only be made if we are willing to contemplate non-materialist approaches.
Read More ›
Collins’s recent admissions and overarching career illustrate why we should resist the current push to impose a regime of rule by experts.
Read More ›
In reality, faith means that you can’t be absolutely sure that something will work but it is a reasonable belief.
Read More ›
The Lancet needs to go back to being a medical journal rather than a propaganda outlet for progressive politics.
Read More ›
Why should we believe what materialists say anyway? Generally, the sciences whose ultimate message is meaningless void-ism are running aground.
Read More ›
A classic top-down discussion is now taking place on X, an intrinsically bottom-up platform — broadening access while threatening former gatekeepers.
Read More ›
The proponents of censorship can see to it that even doing research on the topic is seen as not promoting the greater good. Thus reform cannot come from within.
Read More ›
When Anthony Fauci claimed to “represent science” — a claim no mortal should make — he probably knocked several points off trust in science immediately.
Read More ›
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 ›