VIEW HEADLINES ONLY
The Early Hummingbird Gets the Evolutionary Nectar
May 28, 2014
A three-inch fossil bird is said to be the earliest nectar-feeder, meaning pollination by birds is older and more complex than thought.
Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Consensus in Crisis
October 24, 2013
Worries and debates emerge from supporters of human-caused global warming – not just skeptics. How does this resemble the creation-evolution debate?
Scientists Can Agree on Things that Aren’t So
May 27, 2013
Whenever you hear "all scientists agree" or "we now know," it's no guarantee a finding won't be disputed years later. In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much on the content of the disputed subjects as the implications for philosophy of science.
Intolerance Grows for Skeptics of Consensus Science in Spite of Data
September 26, 2012
If you question evolution or man-caused global warming, be prepared for a smear. If you are a Christian, be prepared for hate. But the skeptics may have the facts on their side.
Chinks in the Scientific Method
December 29, 2011
V & V. That’s shorthand in project design for “validation and verification.” Does the scientific method provide V & V? We are all taught to think that peer review, publication and replication help science to be self-checking, so as to avoid error. Some recent articles show that ain’t necessarily so. It may sound good in theory, but in practice, the ideal doesn’t always match the real.
Spin or Sin
November 1, 2011
You are bureau chief for a science news organization. Your job is to convince the public that science is right, and their doubts are wrong. You believe in reason and evidence, but you are frustrated that large segments of the population doubt the scientific consensus on certain hot-topic issues. The way to reach them, you say, is by coaxing people they already respect to convey the message, and use graphics to present the evidence. Sound reasonable?
Objectivity of Science Undermined
October 24, 2011
Science has no boast if not objective. It is objectivity that supposedly sets science apart from all other modes of inquiry: following a “scientific method” that guarantees objective truth about the natural world. Results are reported in peer-reviewed journals that weed out mistaken ideas. After publication, other scientists can replicate any published results, making science a self-correcting process that refines its objectivity over time. Most insiders and philosophers know that the picture is highly flawed, but the vision persists that science is objective. Recent articles raise awareness of some of the problems with the portrayal of scientific objectivity.