Philosophers of science well understand that everything from enticements (prestige, publishing, etc.) to threats (tenure, funding, etc.) influence scientists and science, but perhaps no one has said it betterthan Dr. Bruce Charlton: Read more
6 Replies to “Science Has All Kinds of Non Scientific Influences and Motivations”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I just skimmed the what was in the “read more,” but I didn’t see any examples of the “so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years.” Anyone care to enlighten me, or is Mr. Charlton just blowing smoke out his rear?
AVS 1
I agree. Mr. Charlton is long on rhetoric, but seems short on specifics.
“Zombie” science. What an apt description for neo-Darwinism. A useless, largely tax-payer funded, pseudo-science that is defended by mindless Darwinbots as if their very soul, the one thing they deny, was dependent on it.
It is also of related interest to note that the concept of ‘philosophical zombies’ was used very aptly by David Chalmers to clearly illustrate the ‘hard problem’ of conciousness:
Supplemental notes:
Not only is it impossible for the zombies of Darwinism to live their life as if materialism were true, but it is also impossible for materialistic zombies to conduct science as if materialism were true,,,
Verse and Music
related note: Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
Excerpt: “some feature of “intelligence” must be irreducible to physics, because otherwise we’re back to physics versus physics, and there’s nothing for SETI to look for.”,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90071.html
Neuroscience Tried Wholly Embracing Naturalism, But Then the Brain Got Away – Denyse O’Leary – September 25, 2014
Excerpt:,,, Actually, it is somewhat unusual during the reign of naturalism for so much dissent to come from within the discipline, as it has in neuroscience. Most cosmologists accommodate untestable multiverse cosmologies, origin-of-life researchers guard naturalism zealously despite its fruitlessness, and human paleontologists are more numerous than important fossils, with the usual results (much ado about nothing). Why might human brain research be different?,,,
There is also the fact that most people think of neuroscience as part of medicine. That tends to ground its clinical practice in the real world.
So, it is still conventional to assert that the mind is not merely the brain —
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90061.html
William Dembski Explains Why Intelligent Design Does Not, and Cannot, Make Sense Under Materialist Premises – September 26, 2014 – video
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90041.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-nBKm_-SWs