The reason COVID-19 matters in our discussion of issues at UD News is that it may be the first time many people begin to understand one of the things we have been trying to talk about here for years: The way “science” can just become a club of people who front (and maybe even believe) certain things and suppress others irrespective of evidence, misusing their authority.
Science
The Science is Settled — now just SHUT Up. Except, we aren’t shutting up. We can’t.
Of course, there are orthodoxies and then there are smelly orthodoxies. COVID-19 created a situation where many more people than otherwise have discovered a really smelly orthodoxy in science. Prediction: More people will start asking more questions.
The slow descent of “Science!” As in “Trust the Science!”
Varadarajan: The World Health Organization is a particular offender: “We had a dozen Western scientists go to China in February and team up with a dozen Chinese scientists under the auspices of the WHO.” At a subsequent press conference they pronounced the lab-leak theory “extremely unlikely.” The organization also ignored Taiwanese cries for help with Covid-19 in January 2020.
Science questions whose answers we may never get
Part of the problem is that everyone is dealing from the same deck. No one has “super” consciousness. That must make a difference in understanding.
At MMN How an eccentric mathematician opened up the world
The First Incompleteness Theorem means that the big materialists project is essentially already over. But it takes a long time to mop up.
Asked at Reason Magazine: How much science research is fraudulent?
Bailey: The possibility that fraud may well be responsible for a significant proportion of the false positives reported in the scientific literature is suggested by a couple of new Dutch studies. Both studies are preprints that report the results of surveys of thousands of scientists in the Netherlands aiming to probe the prevalence of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct.
Amazing! An evolution of religion study has actually been retracted
Some of us thought that researchers were allowed to talk whatever nonsense they liked about the evolution of religion and call it science but apparently there are exceptions.
Video Presentation: Why the Debate Over Intelligent Design Really Matters
I have recently posted a new video presentation on my YouTube channel. In the video I talk about some of the reasons why I think the debate over Intelligent Design and biological origins is of great significance. Aside from just being a fascinating area, it has many implications in several areas of life. This video, Read More…
At Mind Matters News: Michael Egnor takes a more jaundiced view of Richard Lewontin
Michael Egnor asks, re Richard Lewontin, Is it scientific misconduct to make science about materialist atheism?
Four models of science and religion
Dr. Miller looks at Ian Barbour’s four models which explore the relationship between science and faith. Dr. Miller shows how each model offers a different answer to these important questions.
A classic from a lost world: Carl Sagan on God
Why doesn’t this sort of thing seem so cool any more?
John Horgan: Science should not try to absorb religion – and Jerry Coyne’s reply
I (O’Leary for News) wouldn’t trust either of these people to run the transit system if I need to get to church on time.
When Woke invades science…
Sadly, cancer isn’t racist. Nor is Alzheimer syndrome. They can’t be fought by rallies or civil disobedience, which we could all just do. Not just anyone who cares can be a science researcher. A war on math, for example, as “white supremacy” will simply prevent progress.
Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…
Why is science reporting so bad?
Novella’s points are well taken. But, if anything, media tend to be too deferential to science sources and are most likely to just follow their lead, in time for the 6:00 am deadline. If you are in media, you must publish something, and soon.