I sense some vaguely spiritual concepts (often disguised as pop philosophy) that are being introduced into public conversations about science of late, probably

I sense some vaguely spiritual concepts (often disguised as pop philosophy) that are being introduced into public conversations about science of late, probably this is a result of the growing mistrust and desire to return to "a simpler, more wholesome world" I've been hearing about. What the article cites as "cosmic habituation" is nothing more than thinly veiled anthropocentrism, an attempt to explain the behavior of complex systems with simple delusions of how human semantics supposedly influence cosmic reality. The specific meme discussed in the article has been popping up all over the place in the last two weeks, and to give the New Yorker's editors minimal credit, they strain to eventually reach a balanced view in an effort not to offend anyone. However, some viewpoints just don't deserve equal consideration, and it doesn't matter how many supposed authorities are dragged into the debate to infuse it with credibility. I worry about statements like "Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism.", because while factually true, they serve as pretexts to mislead the public into thinking that scientific results are just opinions and open to a debate based on spiritual worldviews. Yes, models are almost always faulty, yes there are tons of results that turned out to be spotty or in dire need of adjustment. Science welcomes these faults, because they serve to point out errors that need to be corrected. So some researchers discovered their assumptions turned out to be false, I get that frustration. But it's not a cosmic conspiracy. Articles like this one often play with the sentiment that "the truth wears off", it doesn't. It is really hard to define models that stand the test of time. If you're a scientist your goal is to find models that best explain your data. You accept your models will be incomplete at best, and have a decent chance of turning out as totally wrong later. No matter the outcome, finding new data contradicting the old model is always a good thing, because it's a chance to update it, to make it stronger, or to throw it out in favor of something better. We're dealing with a number of complex systems that have complex interactions. It's hard to isolate factors. And even if you do, many researchers fail miserably at basic statistical reasoning when it comes to determine the relevance of variables. It happens even to renowned physicists. It's hard. But it's not the mysterious work of an anthropocentric cosmos. The universe really doesn't care what we believe or not.