”

When are scientists going to understand that scientific research (applying the scientific method to events in the natural world and theorizing cause and effect) and the philosophy of science (the meaning of scientific “facts” and “discoveries”) are two very different things? The former is morally neutral. It simply describes what is. The latter is interpretative, applying this information to the timeless philosophical questions of life (Is there a God? What is consciousness? What is truth? What is the meaning of life? What is evil? How should I live? What responsibilities does humankind have to the larger natural world?) or critiquing the thinking processes that go into forming scientific theories themselves.

….

Why shouldn’t scientific journals allow for philosophical debate about origins of life based on the wealth of available scientific data? People are concerned about the issue of origins. Scientists know this and plead for funding based on the potential contribution to these philosophical questions. At least in a philosophical argument, assumptions are up front and reason is deployed. The scientific community doesn’t own the philosophical interpretation of scientific data. The more open exchange and thoughtful debate the better. Unfortunately, the scientific fiefdoms, as the article demonstrates, can be just as dogmatic, stifling, and protective of their knowledge-based empires as any medieval theologian.

“frankly speaking” - comment on an article about the possibility of an intelligent design book being published by an serious science publisher

(Source: insidehighered.com)