https://bostonreview.net/steven-shapin-scientism-virtue: Stephen Shapin defends science…
I am far more pro-science than a reader here might think: perhaps for that reason the ability to challenge science emerges without obsessive anti-science stances.
The point is hardly relevant: scientists themselves are the strongest critics of science. We cited this book here:
Farewell to Reality
But check out the association-linked titles below the book data: there are dozens of books being written challenging science. I am little more than a bystander looking at what scientists themselves are doing.
The link to transcendental idealism strongly suggests one of the reasons for disenchantment. The question of physics is becoming equivocal: one cannot easily refer to a settled theory to resolve knowledge questions. That is clear from the various debates over religion by the new atheists backed up by physicists, with the theories of the multiverse entering the confusion. The issue of multiverses is driving many for the first time to the point where they want an outside arbiter to pass judgment on a physics theory, one subject to charges of bias on theological questions, no less.
The connection with Kant could be one route to resolve some of the confusion: physics and metaphysics have some overlapping issues. But Kantian thinking is very radical, and, as does modern physics, places the observer at the core of the theory.
But the real problem area is the question of evolution and the failure of darwinism. I find it telling and somewhat baffling that scientists/physicists are so stuck on the evolution question, and can’t see the obvious problems with darwinism (Fred Hoyle excepted). We have discussed this dozens of times here: evolution isn’t a subject resolved by current science. And people trained in physics, very smart people, are almost worse on the question of evolution. The reason is the bait of science fool’s gold: a simple set of formulas for natural selection, and or the altruism question. The elimination of values from such discussions seems second nature to those trained in physics, and it doesn’t strike any of these scientists that altruism is beyond solution by reductionist methods.