Massimo Pigliucci: But as the German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has pointed out (also in Aeon), there is absolutely no reason to think that simplicity and beauty are reliable guides to physical reality. She is right for a number of reasons.
The problem is that people can come to think of approved stagnation as a duty and stagnating as a virtue. If a genius comes along, with new ideas, they have lost the habit of listening with expectation.
Wait till you catch one of the fashionable witches also fronting the idea that we should all trust science. You can at least enjoy a sense of the ridiculous.
“Scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.”
For example, “The presence of a band of highly trained, academically qualified scholars with a good track record for publishing in top journals or with highly regarded book publishers, and who are unified in rejecting the view held by even a vast majority of the relevant experts. “
Case in point, David Bohm. In reality, just about everything except non-materialism is forgiven, despite the history.
Setting the story of the heliocentric conception of the universe in the context of its time is more interesting than TV talking point.
To judge from the flow of verbiage, it spells little good for the sciences. One rather inclines, in part, to Steven Weinberg’s succinct view,given last: Alas, it was too late. I may be just out of the loop, but it seems to me now that for scientists to argue against constructivism is beating a dead […]
But the Woke war on science, now that IS real.
Maybe the main thing to see here is that lots of people would love to falsify or tame quantum mechanics, the way they would like to falsify the Big Bang or fine-tuning and it won’t be their fault for lack of trying.
With respect to the simulation multiverse: Why could there not be countless, helplessly infinite, simulations of the simulations as well?
Science Uprising calls out indoctrination by people such as Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Trust science? No. Trust but verify.
One way of looking at it: If you believe vaguely that “there is something out there,” you needn’t do anything about it. You needn’t even avoid superstition. You can even be part of a war on science in good faith.
She also reveals that a two-page survey was handed out, asking a number of none-o’-yer-business questions on behalf of “Audience Research & Analysis, an organization that helps government agencies and cultural agencies to “move forward with decision research.”