Science is essential for human flourishing. So why does so much science communication paint a bleak, nihilist picture of the world?
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
Articles on Philosophy of science
Displaying 1 - 20 of 40 articles
Everybody thinks they know what drugs are, but a clear definition is surprisingly elusive.
While some worry “wokeist” ideology could corrupt scientific merit, it could be our problematic understanding of the latter poses an even greater threat to science, two philosophers argue.
Some physicists don’t believe that quantum mechanics is a perfect description of objective reality.
Scientists aren’t always right, and new evidence can always emerge to disprove a theory. Still, philosophy helps explain why there is good reason for us to trust science regardless.
Two simple rules can help us identify future-proof science.
Some scientists believe the ‘free energy principle’ can explain the behaviour of all living things – but others say it paints the world with too broad a brush to be useful.
Cutting-edge theories of physics suggest time may not be real – but even if they’re right, life can still go on as usual.
Scientists need to be good at asking questions, investigating the world to find answers, and keeping in mind that no matter how much they know, there’s always more to learn.
Did humans invent mathematics or does it exist independently?
‘Reality, including ourselves, is nothing but a thin and fragile veil’: a new interpretation of quantum physics says objects have no independent existence.
Politics always influences what questions scientists ask. Their intertwined relationship becomes a problem when politics dictates what answers science is allowed to find.
Quantum mechanics is strange. A philosopher explains just how strange, and what it means for reality.
What did Pythagoras do with all those triangles, anyway?
A new twist on an old experiment reveals several common-sense ideas about reality can’t all be true.
If expert advice on the pandemic turns out to be wrong, it will have dire consequences for how reliable scientific evidence is treated in other policy areas, such as climate change.
Scientific models can help us understand the important features of complex systems, but they need good data.
Are molecules, chairs, genes and humans really just the sum of their physical parts? A team of philosophers are trying to find out.
Scientists can’t expect the unexpected if they’re not open-minded about how their theories might be wrong.
Are you dreaming that you’re awake or are you living in a computer simulation? There might be no way to be sure.
Top contributors
-
Associate Professor, Philosophy of Science, Australian Catholic University
-
Lecturer, The University of Queensland
-
Professor in Philosophy of Science, Durham University
-
Senior Research Fellow, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford
-
Professor of Philosophy, The University of Melbourne
-
Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle
-
Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University
-
Directeur de recherche CNRS, Institut d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
-
PhD; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (retired) and Research Fellow, University of California, Davis
-
Professorial Fellow, University of Wollongong
-
Honorary Associate in Philosophy, University of Sydney
-
Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
-
Research Fellow, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania
-
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Deakin University
-
Research director, Centre d’Analyses de Mathématiques Sociales (CAMS), Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)
