Tara Urner Ferit, I think this is a really interesting point and one I wish more scientists

were comfortable discussing. Full disclosure, I marched for science because I love my job in
a cell biology lab. That said, there are two main things about science that I find most
problematic.

The first is that I think the scientific discourse tries to force itself into discussions around
topics that dont even remotely fit with the scientific method (which is not to say anything
completely does, of course). I feel like this happens a lot in behavioral neuroscience and in
some fields in genetics, where scientific discourse can never meet its self-imposed criterion
of showing causal relationships, but goes right on publishing things as objective fact.

The second is that most scientists seem to hold the belief that the only valid way to
approach a problem is through science. I often sense a lot of scorn in the community for
different philosophical frameworks that I dont think is inherent to the practice of science,
but is a product of egotism.

These two problems make up a feedback loop that propagates harmful ways of thinking
and acting. The question for me becomes, are the negative impacts of science really
inherent to the method (and maybe Heidegger would say yes), and what can be alleviated
by a more self-aware practice of science?

Something I like about science (which you know because you graded my thesis ;) ) is that
there are places where scientists have collectively drawn a line and said, Scientific method
will never explain or predict this phenomenon, as has happened in parts of quantum
mechanics. I think this is good, and should be practiced more.

If you teach that class I would love a copy of the syllabus. And I would definitely march for
philosophy