<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Science on Antonio Miras Personal Blog</title>
    <link>http://amiras.net/tags/science/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Science on Antonio Miras Personal Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://amiras.net/tags/science/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Science, dogmas and the unexpected comeback of Lamarckism</title>
      <link>http://amiras.net/posts/2026-08-25-science-dogmas-lamarckism/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>http://amiras.net/posts/2026-08-25-science-dogmas-lamarckism/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;When policy topics overlap with the scientific domain, it is commonly repeated by politicians and journalists that the voice of scientists must be followed without further consideration. That implies that, at least in those instances, researchers are not like regular people, as their thoughts are shaped by the scientific method and the biases affecting laypeople don&amp;rsquo;t apply to them. Since they are experts in deep domains that cannot be effortlessly weighed, their advice must be followed. I think it&amp;rsquo;s important for a regular citizen to understand whether those assertions are self-evident or whether scientific opinions must still be questioned, as they are more and more impacting our daily lives.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
