How should we treat science’s growing pains?, asks Jerome Ravetz in the Guardian. An interesting article about different aspects of what the author construes as science’s crisis, from reproducibility (or lack thereof) to the abuse of metrics of merit.
Over at the New York Times, Teddy Wayne reflects on the end of reflection, meaning the fact that our portable e-gadgets are making it increasingly difficult to idly observe our surroundings in moments of inactivity. I’m not convinced this is such a bad development, but food for thought nonetheless.
Lots of articles on Trump vs Clinton these days, but this one by Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post compares their reactions to the Orlando shootings. Anyone who insists that “there is no difference” between the candidates is full of obvious crap.
Can liberal education save the sciences?, asks Lorraine Daston in Point Magazine. Yeah, you read the question right: she isn’t worried (too much) about the STEM disciplines destroying liberal education, but rather about what the latter can do for the former.
A new entry in the seemingly never ending diatribe between neuroscientists and philosophers about free will. This time Hanoch Ben-Yami argues at the Scientific American blog that recent grand claims by neuroscientists actually “demonstrate that conceptual confusions and irresponsible overgeneralisations can mislead overconfident scientists.” Ouch.