There is a perception that the organised scientific community has been “conspicuously” silent and that it was high time that changed and they started engaging with society.
Scientists cannot take a moral ground about blind beliefs and superstition until they also focus their criticism on their own practices.
In a flawed critique against the March for Science in India, the philosopher erects and razes strawmen, presuming he has made his case.
His sustained emphasis on the methods of science and his trenchant and sustained criticism of Satya Sai Baba, among others, won him many admirers but few co-travellers.
Article 51A (h) of the Indian constitution says it shall be a fundamental duty of all citizens “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.”
Why won’t the two candidates vying for the most influential policymaking post on the planet not engage in a debate on the science that impacts America on a daily basis?
Plurality and the scientific method have a civilisational context, and they must define a new civilisational morality. Scientists must help engender this.