YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsScience


December 2, 2006
Re "Fundamentalism for adults only," Current, Nov. 26 Michael Bywater wrongly blames science for the deficiencies of those who do not understand it. He claims that science includes "articles of faith," when in fact it deals exclusively with logic and mathematically quantifiable confidence. He tries to equate religion and science, but only the latter necessarily shows its work. Bywater characterizes religion as a "valid way of thinking," though logical validity entails truth preservation, which faith does not. Religion also "delivers results," but only in the form of comfort, not knowledge.
March 13, 2001
Re "$1-Million Templeton Prize Goes to British Priest," March 9: With all due respect for the Rev. Canon Arthur Peacocke, who has devoted a substantial chunk of professional energy to higher learning, his conclusions as presented by The Times are sophomoric at best. His attempted rapprochement between religion (Christianity for Peacocke) and science amounts to little more than self-help theorizing for Christian intellectuals. Yes, biological systems are immensely complicated, and therefore there must be a God who made it all and will grant us everlasting life.
October 28, 2013 | By Michael Hiltzik
After reading my weekend column about the crisis in life science research, Hajime Hoji of USC's linguistics department reminded me of the late Richard Feynman's brilliant deconstruction of the flaws and pitfalls of science as it's done in the modern age. "Cargo Cult Science" was adapted from Feynman's 1974 commencement speech at Caltech, where his spirit reigns as one of that institution's two certified saints. (The other is Robert A. Millikan, Caltech's first president.)
December 7, 1994
Your editorial, "Science Must Police Its Ranks" (Nov. 30), contains several factual and conceptual errors that should not pass uncorrected. First, regarding the Thereza Imanishi-Kari case, Nobelist David Baltimore did not indulge in "a questionable practice that is too common, his name was put on the paper even though he had nothing directly to do with the study." In fact, the publication in Cell in 1986 was a product of a collaboration between the laboratories of Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari, and much of the data in the paper were generated in Baltimore's laboratory, not in Imanishi-Kari's.
February 25, 2014 | By Stacey Leasca
After combing through 656,000 photos on Instagram from five global cities, a team of data researchers has come to a conclusion: Selfies say more about you than you think. The science of selfies is serious business, says Lev Manovich, project coordinator behind “Selfies, you know we have interesting opinion, but they are just based on maybe a few thousand selfies we look at,” said the Russian-born researcher and author in heavily accented English. “We thought, why don't we take a more objective look.” To study the selfie phenomenon, Manovich -- a computer science professor at City University New York -- and a team of seven researchers scanned the globe.
August 16, 1990
John A. Moore (Science, Common Sense and Our Public Fears," Commentary, Aug. 12) presents a reasonable-sounding position on the role of scientists in informing social policy decisions. He also appears to be so politically naive that he might as well be from another planet. Moore would rely on the opinions of "mainstream" scientists. What this ignores is the relationship most "mainstream" scientists have with the profit-driven corporations that employ them. The problem is compounded because our elected representatives are so very often beholden to the same corporations.
Los Angeles Times Articles