Why should we trust “authority,” when it has been publicly embarrassed over and over?
Sadly, there is a war on science, of sorts, afoot. Social justice warriors, for example, are taking dead aim at math. And at objectivity generally. It’s as if, unable or unwilling to even name, let alone withstand the threat, establishment science types hope to distract themselves with a different story until it goes away. Good luck with that. They see you have funding. And they always need more money.
Yeah. Sure. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that it was orthodox science media (Scientific American, we are looking at you… ) who were marketing the space alien thing, not some crackpot in a tinfoil hat. And yet the same people have the nerve to sponsor reams of stuff on why “people” believe in pseudoscience.
Marcelo Gleiser: “Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”
The mathematically provable idea that something exists but is unknowable has clear philosophical and theological implications.
Most of the article is just establishment hand wringing. The main reason so many people don’t “trust science” is the same one that causes people not to trust used car dealers.
Sheldon: If they had actually done their homework, instead of rebelling against their parents, they would have learned what we knew by 2011: The average age for great discoverings is older now.
Say what you want about the brand new world of the raging Woke, lots of scientists are going to find out what the Dissent from Darwinism crowd know: People will say mean and crazy things about you if you go where the evidence you have personally seen leads. That’s the price of being honest these days.
In which case, panpsychism (you are conscious and so is your coffee mug), despite its popularity, is wrong. Here’s a simple but serious explanation.
As a cultural studies prof explains, it’s whatever you want it to be – everything, anything, and nothing.
The thing is, scientists do philosophy whether they admit it and try to be coherent or don’t admit it, with distressing results.
As Michael Egnor tells us, scientism is not a cure for stupidity. But never mind, quite a few science savants have rushed in fearlessly: Evolutionary biologist David Krakauer, President of the Santa Fe Institute, told Nautilus, “Stupidity is using a rule where adding more data doesn’t improve your chances of getting [a problem] right. In […]
Some of us remember the spate of sciencey articles that appeared in women’s mags on the cancer-prone personality. It sounded wrong at the time. Many of us knew so many people who had died of cancer who didn’t fit the type at all.
The opinion piece is basically an extended defense of the kind of atmosphere in which the most ridiculous claims for Darwinism, for example, flourish and any questioners had better be careful. There is a lot of that out there in many areas now and the faithful are continually exhorted all the more to trust science, whether it’s sense or nonsense.
There are indeed remarkable breakthroughs happening out there but, as the study showed, the relationship between hope and hype is often not as advertised.