We can adapt Francis Schaeffer’s themes, looking back to the Christian Synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Greece and Rome, and the onward flow of ideas and cultural agendas since Paul of Tarsus: Schaeffer thought that once there was an upper/lower storey approach that in effect gave up on solving the problem of the one Read More…
Malone: The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented. Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.
From the Intro: He and Wesley [Smith] discuss the philosophy of mathematics, the corruption of science, and the causes of the ongoing devolution of Western society.
Warren: The “science is settled” trope is stretched much too far (and not just with COVID), and it costs credibility.
Philosopher Marc Lange: Laws of nature can explain why something failed to happen by revealing that it cannot happen – that it is impossible. If so, there can’t really be “laws” of evolution unless we can show that no other outcome is possible.
Anyone familiar with popular science writing on evolution will see what Thomas means here. Darwinism is introduced as a hypothesis/theory but then treated as a dogma/article of faith — and (this is emotionally very important) a way of segregating the Smart People from the Yobs and Yayhoos. Appeals to science-based analysis fall on deaf ears because the dogma has become what “science” now means.
No. The question isn’t whether science is a good thing but whether the current establishment is in fact focused on science or on maintaining/regaining control through pronouncements about “science” and edicts stemming from those pronouncements. One needn’t look far to see examples of the latter. And what to do about that is the discussion we need to have.
West goes on to point out other instances. The big question is, has secretiveness, deception, and a resulting hunger for authoritarian rule based on “science” has become a way of life in the upper echelons of a high-tech society? And then the biggest questions looms: What to do about it? At one time, it was just Darwin gibber in the schools and such-like stuff. Now it is getting more serious.
Cornelius Hunter takes it on. Incidentally, the fact that this promissory materialism, for which Darwinism is the origin story, is all hype and no hope never means anything. A fresh batch of media will bring up the same worn themes. And it’s as close to science as large numbers of educated mediocrities ever want to get.
Prasad: “Throughout this pandemic, the CDC has been a poor steward of that balance, pushing a series of scientific results that are severely deficient. This research is plagued with classic errors and biases, and does not support the press-released conclusions that often follow.” After a while, the public will catch on. The reputation of science is not going to do well out of the “Trust the Science!” phase.
It’s hard to understand why the researchers take comfort from finding that, worldwide, people will believe absolute nonsense if it comes from scientists.
From il gato malo: “many times, the claims made in the abstract or in the conclusions are not supported by the actual data.”
Cornelius Hunter points out that the most powerful arguments for schoolbook Darwinism are theological in character: What God wouldn’t do, etc. And they also apply only to alternative viewpoints, not to core Darwinism itself.
Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is challenging evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci to a debate. He thinks there is too much of this no-free-will nonsense in the science blogosphere. Egnor: “Free will has no physical cause? At least four categories of events in nature have no physical cause. Free will denial isn’t science, just atheism in a lab coat.”
The “zombie” argument does what it is supposed to do: Shows that consciousness, the motivating force in our lives, is not really a material thing.