Several interesting responses here. For example, there are mathematicians and physicists arguing we should retire the multiverse and string theory (e.g. Eric Weinstein, Frank Tipler).
There are evolutionists arguing we should retire modern evolutionary theory, or at least significantly revise certain key aspects of modern evolutionary theory (e.g. Roger Highfield).
There are physicians and other relevant scientists arguing we should retire or revise evidence-based medicine and how medical research is conducted (e.g. Dean Ornish).
There are other responses worth reading.
Of course, I don't agree with everything. Not to mention there are people like Jerry Coyne who have unintentionally funny responses in light of their own beliefs.
HT: Steve.
Thanks for the link - this is really enjoyable! And speaking of unintentionally funny responses, Andrei Linde's last 3 paragraphs are quite the example of musing about the obviousness of creation, and then undergoing contortions to escape it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, thechifiles.com! There's a lot of intriguing material, to say the least.
DeleteAlthough there's also much to disagree with. I certainly wouldn't endorse everything of course.
Most of the ones I looked at were not actually scientific ideas but philosophical claims in need of argument, on top of the science these people are thinking supports the claim. In many of the cases, I think the science is not sufficient to get their conclusion, and the philosophy they would use (without calling it that) is inadequate. The one about race is one that I spent my entire dissertation arguing against, for example.
ReplyDeleteJeremy, is your dissertation available for purchase? (Being biracial, I have a personal interest in questions of racial identity.)
DeleteThanks, Jeremy. I agree with what you've said in general.
DeleteSpecifically I suppose it depends on which response or contributor we're talking about.
Plus, even within the same response by an individual contributor there are sometimes patches of useful stuff intermingled with useless stuff, good points mixed with bad points, etc. For example, I agree the science may not be sufficient to get to the conclusion a particular contributor wants, but it doesn't necessarily mean the science in and of itself is likewise insufficient, or perhaps damning in other ways, even in ways which would seem inconsistent with the scientist's other beliefs or values. (Not that you claimed otherwise of course. But I bring it up just for clarity's sake.)