Member-only story
Conflating Philosophy and Science
In the search for truth, philosophy and science are both important. But, should scientists and science journals disclose when they are engaging in philosophy? And when they don’t, is trust in science affected? Three recent articles in the New Scientist raise the question.
My recent post on “flimflam” science generated some significant interest. Many, but not all, agreed with the polemic against science publishing written by the Spanish physicist Alex Gomez-Marin. He blamed the loss of public trust in science on the strict adherence to physicalist dogma and its enforcement by science journals. His primary ire was related to the professional science journals, but the science journalists writing for the non-science public were also mentioned.
According to AI, the New Scientist is one of the top science publications for a general audience. It is a favorite read of mine, but it also frequently makes Gomez-Marin’s point. I’ve noted before where the strict adherence to physicalist dogma is evident in their posts. But recently they have moved significantly into philosophy without any attempt to distinguish between philosophizing and presenting the latest science. When scientists do this, as major physicalist defenders like Lawrence Krauss, Jerry Coyne, Brian Greene, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, and others often do (or did), this blending can contribute to the…
