Michael Egnor replies, “The assertion that self is an illusion is not even wrong — it’s self-refuting, like saying “I don’t exist” or “Misery is green”
From an interview with John Staddon we learn that constructive criticism is more useful than cheerleading when one’s game needs work. One outcome of the problems Staddon describes is that “trust the science” is becoming something of a joke in a broad variety of areas and that is not good news.
Hossenfelder: You can approximate the laws that we know with a computer simulation – we do this all the time – but if that was how nature actually worked, we could see the difference. Indeed, physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step by step, like in a computer code, but their search has come up empty handed.
Disparagement of falsification in science has come up quite a bit in recent years, mainly sponsored — we think —by people whose ideas are unfalsifiable in principle and therefore only doubtfully science.
The English-language portion starts at about 1:30. It sounds as though the interviewer finds that Berlinski’s approach takes a bit of getting used to — but all the better.
Thomas Kuhn? Where are you? Could you comment on this “paradigm” stuff? It’s really your show.
How about juggling, riding a unicycle, and playing bongo? Or catching criminals or cracking safes? … Many people would be very surprised by the things that matter most to many famous scientists. Hint: Many are not atheists.
The war on falsification is like the war on math. Causes with nonsense or destruction at their heart cannot succeed while such values remain in place.
Ilana Redstone: First, statistics don’t interpret themselves. There are often multiple, competing explanations for the same result, and we are left to choose among them.
He hopes to address common science, philosophy, and faith issues.
Kastrup: Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.
To claim that science must oppose non-materialist ideas is to make it into an ideology. We know little about some aspects of our universe.
Dr. Hesselmann’s probably right but how depressing. In a world where so much research that doesn’t involve fraud fails replication, it’s just a fact that most published research papers in many fields are probably wrong or at least sloppy. So why bother with fraud? But not exactly a good look for science.
Burgess: Some of the biological elements called bad design are actually ones that systems engineers value quite a bit and use in their work frequently.
Don’t believe us. This is Scientific American talking: ” In the House of Representatives, just two endorsed challengers out of eight won, though one race remains too close to call because mailed ballots are still being counted.” Yuh. If you are a player, you can lose. That’s why we thought it would have been smarter for the Big Science types to stick to their traditional position as referees instead of jumping into the fray with all the others.