Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Science

Could COVID-19 help us understand the current buzz in science media about space aliens?

It’s worth noting that we haven’t established that there are even fossil bacteria on Mars. But we are starting to hear more than ever that there are intelligent aliens out there, most recently from Ars Technica and Scientific American. Fundamentally, we have found nothing since the Sixties that truly suggests extraterrestrial civilizations. Nothing. If they want to keep looking, fine. Nobody’s stopping them. But spare us the dramatics. Read More ›

The high costs of scam science

Wright: What was also not-so-novel about the COVID crisis was its origin in scam or junk science. John Ionnnidis, one of the leading critics of weak scientific work, jumped right in to alert people and policymakers about the many problems with various predictive models but he was largely ignored despite being one of the most highly-cited scientists alive. That is actually not unusual. Read More ›

COVID-19 and the need for skeptics in science

St. Onge: For COVID-19, Ferguson predicted 3 million deaths in America unless we basically shut down the economy. Panicked policymakers took his prediction as gospel, dressed as it was in the cloak of science. Read More ›

At ACSH: Understanding the loss of credibility of expert opinion, post-COVID-19

Berezow: A loss of credibility, therefore, happens for other reasons. In the case of coronavirus, we believe there are five reasons: Incompetence, waffling, moving the goalposts, disregarding unintended consequences, and being political. Read More ›

COVID-19 and fading respect for Big Science

It’s not the uncertainty that is the problem. It’s the demand for belief and obedience to a variety of conflicting claims in the face of such uncertainty. Sooner or later people begin to doubt whatever they hear, even in matters about which there is considerable certainty. And Big Science is bringing that on itself. It isn't the "enemies of science" who are doing it. Read More ›

Paul Nelson on methodological naturalism and scientists who don’t believe in it

Nelson: Now, you may think MN is unnecessary, or even unsound, for the practice of science. (Another time, I hope to discuss the surprising fact that many atheist scientists and philosophers disagree strongly with MN, when MN is proclaimed as an unconditional rule.) The National Academy, however, is not listening to you, nor are federal courts, Read More ›