But isn’t science on a downward trajectory now anyway? Never mind the multiverse nonsense. What about the war on science and the war on math?
Okay but the multiverse crowd does not lack imagination. Nor do those who have convinced themselves of panpsychism. The thing about imagination in science is that it must be disciplined. If it isn’t, it ends up competing with fiction, without the style.
The historic moment here is the university’s awesome lack of a sense of shame. At one time, people would ask hard questions of themselves if they looked as silly as this, rather than rushing to blame someone else.
Rogers asks, “How did these geniuses find themselves cozying up to a child rapist?” and provides us with some of the many answers that will filter in.
The main thing to see here is that the book is published by National Geographic, once a source you would not have expected to be backing this stuff. The real war on science is not doubts about Darwin. To the extent that so many people have allowed Darwinists to snooker them into believing that, they likely don’t know what to do now that seriously fact-challenged points of view can parade as virtue.
And how it can transcend them via “intelligent design.” Be warned. In the middle of the bridge to the post-human artificial intelligence future sits a fat troll called the Halting Problem, waiting for an unsuspecting computer idealist to wander by…
The bigger problem is overlooked. The basic philosophy of the people doing the science spins the story for them. We live in the age of the space detritus that was supposed to be an extraterrestrial lightsail and the conscious plants. And the talking apes. Oh yes, and the multiverse
Instead of doing a study on religious affiliation and science beliefs (yawn), why not do one, with all the rumty-tumty and trappings, of who the suckers are who actually believe all that stuff uncritically? What else do they believe?
Because science boffins often want it that way. The biggest temptation for science journalists is to be cheerleaders instead of thoughtful and constructive critics. Everybody loves the cheerleader; the critic, however kindly and well-meaning, well — is just not loved so much. So one must be willing to be unpopular at times.
Ethan Siegel: Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria…
People can certainly derive help from their relationship with a psychiatrist but that is an entirely different matter from saying that the science is sound. As science buckles under the strain of trying to be a secular religion, it pays to get things like this straight.
Some of us remember back when religious figures were urged to make some sort of accommodation with psychology. Now that psychology has largely become one big Sokal hoax, it’s hard to see why anyone would bother.
This predilection for occultism over philosophically argued religion will of course impact sciences. Indeed, it already does. Look at the number of stories we’ve been running here lately about science journals slowly making social justice warrior concerns equivalent to research.
It’s difficult for popular science media to be more interested in facts than the public or the science establishment is. If the Guardian readers would really rather hear about “toxic America,” the paper doesn’t need a science section.
“A troll should never give reasons for what he ‘understands.’ What matters is the attitude.”