Science

In the What is knowledge thread, this has come up now, and I think it should be headlined: ____________________ KF, 201: >> Can we regard scientific theories as factual knowledge? This is a deep challenge, especially on the so-called pessimistic induction that historically theories in effect have hidden sell-by dates. That is, theories show more of a track record of replacement (sometimes presented as refinement) than we are comfortable with. A first answer is that a theory, from the abductive angle, is a “best current explanatory framework,” often involving dynamics which may be deterministic or stochastic (or tempered by stochastic factors), and may be empirically reliable in a known or unknown range of circumstances. The turn of C20 surprises faced Read More ›

According to Alex Berezow at American Council on Science and Health: “How do we know what we claim to know?” is quite easily the most important question in science. In fact, the scientific method is designed precisely to answer that question. Through a process of careful observation, hypothesizing, and tightly controlled experimentation, scientists have been able to explain why they know what they claim to know for hundreds of years. Rigorously following this procedure is what separates science from all other disciplines. We’re fine with that but naturalism entails a different approach: Consciousness is an illusion and evidence is an outdated concept where cosmology is concerned. Now here is where the wheels came off: Most aspects of our lives cannot Read More ›

From Stephanie M. Lee at Buzzfeed: … It’s not the first time Cornell has looked into Wansink: In April, after critics publicly questioned four of Wansink’s papers related to pizza consumption, the university said it had found no scientific misconduct related to those papers. Wansink did not immediately return a request for comment about the investigation. Overall, critics have raised red flags about at least 50 of Wansink’s studies. The high-profile professor has retracted four articles — most recently one last week — and has at least eight corrections published or forthcoming. (That total doesn’t include yet another problematic paper about vegetable-naming that stands to be corrected or withdrawn.) In a November 2016 blog post, Wansink praised a visiting graduate Read More ›

In a recent Nature article, Five Ways to Fix Statistics, the overwhelming consensus of the authors were that science needs to incorporate more philosophy.

Read More ›

From a letter published in Nature: Two teams of physicists have subjected Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity to some of the strictest tests so far, and found no deviation from the theory’s predictions. … The team reports agreement between relativity’s predictions and the lunar data that is up to three orders of magnitude better than previously reported. In a separate paper, … authors found that data and theory matched with a precision of up to an order of magnitude better than recorded in previous tests. More. So modern science, say what you want about it – (sexist, racist, imperialist, (apply to your national government’s grievance-monger to have your alternative personal grievance entered on the growing indictment against science…) – accords Read More ›

  From Michael Chaberek, OP, in Aquinas and Evolution: When a scientist discovers the material or the efficient cause while not finding any other, it does not follow that no other causes exist. It simply means that the scientific explanation does not include those other causes. This is not reductionism, because drawing more abstract and general conclusions about living beings as separate substances (or nature as a whole) is outside of science. Reductionism begins not when scientists speak about material and efficient causes alone, but when they (or anyone else) claim that scientific knowledge is the only possible type of knowledge, or that science explains everything, including the mystery of life. And this is not what the proponents of intelligent Read More ›

This needs to go in the Sci-tech watch department for UD: Not directly relevant to ID debates, but a glimpse at the wonders of our world that are well worth pondering. END

David Snoke has announced a meeting on “natural evil” organized by the Christian Scientific Society at Biola U, January 26-27: On Friday night, we will have a debate between David Snoke (me) and Mike Keas on “Are predatory animals a result of the Fall?” (Mike: yes; David: no). Saturday afternoon, we will have four speakers addressing issues on the general topic of natural evil: 1:00 PM. Non-Empirical Influences on Evolutionary Theory and the Principle of Plenitude.” Dr. Cornelius Hunter, author of Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil; Darwin’s Proof, and Science’s Blind Spot. 2:00 PM. “The Human Genome: ENCODED by Design.” Dr. Fazale Rana, Vice President of Research and Apologetics, Reasons to Believe 3:00 PM. “The Tragic History Read More ›

From Robert Arvay at American Thinker: Many scientists no longer regard us as having any special place. We are no longer regarded as having a spiritual dimension, but only a physical one. We are seen to be products of a cold, uncaring universe, indeed, not even a product, but only a mere byproduct, an accident, an unlikely outcome of events that had no plan, no purpose, no meaning. Indeed. Nearly 50% Americans now think humans are not special. The inevitable extension of this purely physical view of humanity is technological barbarism. If we are mere atoms, biological machines, then by what right can we expect to be treated as anything more than that? Indeed, there would be no rights at all, Read More ›

From Sabine Hossenfelder at Backreaction: Popper is dead. Has been dead since 1994 to be precise. But also his philosophy, that a scientific idea needs to be falsifiable, is dead. And luckily so, because it was utterly impractical. In practice, scientists can’t falsify theories. That’s because any theory can be amended in hindsight so that it fits new data. Don’t roll your eyes – updating your knowledge in response to new information is scientifically entirely sound procedure. But she qualifies: Even in his worst moments Popper never said a theory is scientific just because it’s falsifiable. That’s Popper upside-down and clearly nonsense. Unfortunately, upside-down Popper now drives theory-development, both in cosmology and in high energy physics. It’s not hard to Read More ›

From Paul Kingsbury at LiveScience: Recent literature in the social sciences on paranormal cultures argues that despite the rise of a secular, post-religious society, paranormal discourses are becoming increasingly significant in people’s lives in the West. Because the paranormal refers to “events or phenomena… that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding,” researchers have long acknowledged that the paranormal intersects with “normal” everyday life. Recently, however, as a result of a paranormal influence in popular culture, the rise of new spiritualities and commodities associated with them — such as cauldrons, healing crystals and online psychic services — researchers have begun to question describing interest in the paranormal as subcultural or countercultural, rather than mainstream. More. Well, if it is Read More ›

From Alex Berezow at American Council on Science and Health: Climate scientist Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University has sued the National Academy of Sciences, which publishes the prestigious journal PNAS, for publishing an article that disagreed with him. The lawsuit claims that Dr. Jacobson was libeled and slandered. He is suing to get the journal to retract the article. For his hurt feelings and bruised ego, he also wants a big bag of money, $10 million to be precise. To understand this, one must factor in the growing influence of post-modernism in science: There are no facts, only feelings. So unsupported claims are not a problem but hurting someone’s feelings is a big problem, if not a crime. The Read More ›

Where science means: Anything goes (with some targeted exceptions). From Denyse O’Leary at Evolution News & Views: Modern science, beginning in Europe in the 18th century, has been dominated by educated European men. But their dominance was not a principle of science. The principles were the laws and theorems that apply an internationally recognized thought pattern to nature. “Hidden figures” who sought and gained equality applied the same principles to the same effect. But for post-modernists, philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994) provided liberation: “Anything goes.” One outcome is that social justice activists have shifted away from helping marginalized people qualify in science toward questioning its principles, supposedly on behalf of the oppressed. We hear that objectivity is “cultural discrimination” (or sexist), Read More ›

Keep them mad. Maybe serious science is coming up for oxygen… just maybe. From Emma Marris at Nature: On 23 October, a group of current and former volunteers posted an open letter to the central March for Science organization in New York City, alleging that it is secretive, insensitive to the concerns of its volunteers, and unwilling to share power or information with organizers of its many affiliated ‘satellite’ groups around the world. The volunteers also claim that the organization sidelined and stonewalled experienced activists who wanted the movement to focus on how science can be used in ways that perpetuate racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. In a statement to Nature, the March for Science said that it Read More ›

Lizzie Wade shares her worries about the new Museum of the Bible at Science: The grandiose new venture is bankrolled by the Greens, the billionaire family that owns the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores. Since 2009, the Greens, evangelical Christians known for their successful Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that health insurance plans pay for birth control, have amassed a private collection of 40,000 artifacts—both ancient and modern—relating to the Bible and the ancient Near East. The $500 million Museum of the Bible is a separate, nonprofit entity, but Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby, chairs its board, and the family has donated hundreds of artifacts to the museum. Forty thousand artifacts? Wow. Some of the Read More ›