The existence of the God worshiped by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims not only lacks supporting empirical evidence but is even contradicted by such evidence. However, it need not have turned out that way.
Yes, you can be well-intentioned and still do harm. That, at least, is what television personality and media mogul Oprah Winfrey learned when she apparently and good-naturedly dismissed Diana Nyad's claim to being an atheist.
While I agree that changes are called for in certain standards and practices, it is wrong to conclude that there are any fundamental flaws in the basic methods of science. When science is done properly, it still remains the most powerful force for human advancement the world has ever seen.
A hypothesis proposes an idea that makes testable predictions about a given question. We then set up an experiment to test this model by looking for those predictions. This is why predictions are very important. No prediction, no test, no science.
Faith is foolish because it leads people to irrational decisions that pose great dangers to the survival of humanity, such as opposing birth control and thinking that global warming is no problem because God would never let it harm us.
Mainstream science has proved wildly successful despite its setting a low priority for pursuing the nature of consciousness as a major force. What kind of success can we point to for this newer paradigm?
If you propose that Truth with a capital T might return into our lives, like a speck on the horizon that gets bigger and bigger, many would prefer to swat the speck away. For one thing, Truth veers uncomfortably close to God.
I believe Common Core goals are useful for teachers because they help define what students should be able to do at different stages in school. But the Common Core does not detail what students should actually know about content and concepts or how they should be taught.
If we're talking about how they approach a problem, then everything. But Priya and the rest of us in development need to place a greater focus on conducting impact assessments and rigorous studies on our interventions to stay true to our cause.
A politician who proposes politicizing a jury would rightly be pilloried by the court of public opinion and should never hold political office again. And yet the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, has been proposing to do this to scientists.
Under the terms of this deal, religion would be more humble about its teachings, acknowledging that they are sometimes wrong. When science confirms one of religion's guesses, it gives credit where credit is due for having "divined" the answer before it could be established beyond doubt.
What might any scientist, perhaps one like A. J. Bateman, who did a foundational study in sexual selection, have done to save himself from his likely mistakes? Bateman might have used a control experiment to test if the assumptions of his methods were met.
Could Bateman's influential conclusions about the lack of effect of mate number on reproductive success of mothers have been due to an undercount of the number of offspring mothers must have had? Our repetition proved that an unreliable method produced biased results.
It is well-known that women have curious powers to reduce men to hysteria or violence. Less well-known is the power of promiscuous female flies to reduce scientists to apparently self-deceptive blindness to scientific facts.