Shouting "science," as opposed to demonstrating the science, is a tactic used by the ignorant or the deceptive to shut up opponents. The problem with scientific opinion is that it's opinion, which isn't very scientific. Scientists often have conflicting opinions (on global warming, how the universe started, evolution, etc.), and not all of the opinions--even the ones labeled "science"--can be right. What's said in science's name isn't always truth. A U.S. scientist declared a "100 percent chance" of a tsunami following the earthquake that occurred earlier this week on the other side of the world. Well, a few days have passed, and, no tsunami. I'm sure being wrong never felt so right for the geologist. I'm mainly glad he was wrong for the same reason--that the absence of a tsunami spared perhaps thousands of people death. His incorrect yet certain assessment pleases me for a lesser reason: it demonstrates that science, too, is fallible.

We're on the same page on this, Dan.

I've been arguing against scientism and scientistics for quite a while, now. But this strikes a chord with me now because I have been reading Ted Kaczynski's Unabomber Manifesto of late.

I was shocked to find how lucid this guy is! And yet, he studies the societal malaise, and sends bombs to people. He allowed himself this from his rejection what he saw as the paralysis of leftism through "Oversocialization". One just needs to void the conscience at some points, just to live and get things done.

I feel I need to explain my seeming praise for Kaczynski because secular culture has tainted some of the words I used: To the mainstream, intelligence means "listen to this guy he's got the goods". To me it simply means capable of some amount of complex ana-lysis and the ability to convey the result in a linear fashion which displays the ana-lytical insight. When I said he was lucid, I meant that his conclusions mostly follow from his premises.

The subtitle of your most recent book is about "smart" people falling for "stupid" ideas. Thus it presents a case where innate intelligence is not flawless magic bullet to solving all our problems. This belief is endemic to the coup attempt by a would-be priest-class, IMO.

But on your topic: Advocacy of Science-only, is not science. There are no control studies. There is no laboratory. There are only untestable claims that everything would have turned out better if history would have gone your way.

But I think it is interesting to point this out: that absent such critical data, we still have a scrap of what science relies upon: empiricism. Thus, in this maneer, tradtion and culture follows the standard of empricism to a greater degree than scientistic dogmatic reasoning. Without the abuses of Parliament, Madison and Hamilton would have no basis on which to argue that something was "better".

Dogmatic conservatism is an enemy to empiricism. It says that our great grandparents knew the right formula, so there is no need to try anything new. No need to accept anything new. Thus it cannot learn. My brand of conservativism says "try new things" but do not be afraid to apply traditional assessment of them.

It's interesting to note that the value of Science has largely been proven in such an empirical and aggregate fashion rather than forced down our throats. We respond to Science because we, as a culture, have approved of its fruits. Thus, the shouters leverage a cultural approval of Science to argue a dogmatic point about whether anything else has any value, when it was the marketplace of needs itself which gave--and continues to give--Science its standing.

I had a similar reaction upon reading the Unabomber Manifesto. It was not an emotional rant, but rather a well-written, thought-out piece of writing (even though it's ultimately wrong). I remember being a bit shocked when I read it a decade or so ago.

Scientific resoning is arguably the best method we have for describing the complexities of ideas as intricate as evolution, global warming, and etc. Anyone who tries to dismiss science as nothing more than opinions asserted by various cults or undercover partisan affiliates is undoubtedly clueless as to what good science really is. first, science never tries to define an absolute truth contrary to what non-scientists or "believers" might want to think. Second, scientific laws are misperceived to be a claim by scientists of an unchangeable set of facts, again only a misperception. It is simply better to think of these so called laws as merely a model of the construction of reality as we currently understand it. it doesn't have to be perfect, it must only allow futher testing and as a point of reference. Only the hackneyed language of "religious dogma" claims to be absolute and unchanging. Third, only bad scientists shout half cocked declarations such as "100 percent chance." Any mildly articulate person notices the immediate contradiction in the terms used. further any high school drop out can tell you that science is fallible, otherwise what would be the point of experimentation in the first place? Are you to have us believe that "faith' or "common sense" are the best tools for understanding the natural world. Mr flynn, you are obviously articulate (more so than I) but being able to turn a clever phrase does not mean that you are not ignorant. free yourself from ideological argument and give science the respect it deserves.

Your argument is itself ideological in its worship of science. How do I disrespect science merely by stating that it's fallible--something that you acknowledge but seem uncomfortable with me acknowledging?

satchmo: "Scientific resoning is arguably the best method we have for describing the complexities of ideas as intricate as evolution".

This is a reasonable statement, it has not however been tested scientifically. Also, you put "arguably" in there. So arguably, it is not. This is not then a base to leverage a change in somebody else's opinion. If it is "arguably" the case, then one can conceive competant arguments against it. No matter how competant the arguments for it are.

The trick then would be to make sure that your opponent doesn't have such an argument before taking them to task with how they differ. A "difference" is roughly ana-logous to what is "arguable".

satchmo: "Anyone who tries to dismiss science as nothing more than opinions asserted by various cults or undercover partisan affiliates is undoubtedly clueless as to what good science really is."

Against Dan, that is a strawman. The only word that your comment shares with Dan's text is "opinion". But you are getting the relationship wrong. He said that "opinion...isn't very scientific". Which means that opinion falls short of science, not that all science is opinion. So as much as you'd like to dissolve Dan's post in a beaker and heat it over a bunsen burner, you really need to read what he wrote.

Dan also said that among conflicting opinions one of them must be wrong. Both are represented as science. If both are science than, Dan's last statement follows. If one is science and the other not, then clearly "scientific opinion is not science". The same holds if neither are. This can be said, and was said, without casting aspersions of the type you overlaid.

On the other hand, I cast aspersions (in your language, I would guess). I said "dogma". But dogma does not have to be brainless and without rationale, IMO. In fact, the taboo against dogma is a dogma in itself. I also contrasted dogma to empiricism. Where general rules are supposed to overrule individual experiences of the fact, I call that a dogma. Because it is argued top-down, and not bottom-up. Thus natural happenings are actually seen to be constricted by what man understands about the world, rather than nature through its events, telling him what is actually happening.

That structure, in itself, is also a dogma of sorts. I meant no general taboo of dogma. It is quite natural that you would invite the purely-negative connotations of dogma in the door from your worldview (if I judge it right).

I also never said it was akin to a cult. Only scientism, i.e. the worship of science, can be considered akin to a cult (And I'm not entirely sure that I place it on this level). But scientistics do this linkage all the time, to attack their devotion to science-only, is to attack science. This is their frequent non sequitur.

This is also equivalent to self-righteousness. The self-righteous say that you can't attack the laws they lay on you because you are attacking righteousness itself. No, we're not attacking righteousness itself. We are attacking the impositions of the self-righteous.

I also said "priest-class", but again you are arguing from what appears to be more a coloring from your worldview. I in no way need assume that priests know that they are being presumptuous or have selfish motives. Nor do I need to assume that priests have not been mislead or even right in part.

"first, science never tries to define an absolute truth contrary to what non-scientists or "believers" might want to think."

So that's "never" is it? And that is not "absolute" in any sense? So what is a less-than-absolute never? Very seldom? But, you would be right to see that as immaterial to science. Because your claim is not science. I agree that science never does this. But I think that scientists sometimes do and gets called science. Even Dan talked about what is "labeled 'science'".

"Second, scientific laws are misperceived to be a claim by scientists of an unchangeable set of facts, again only a misperception. It is simply better to think of these so called laws as merely a model of the construction of reality as we currently understand it. it doesn't have to be perfect, it must only allow futher testing and as a point of reference."

If you can find some ignorance of this principle in what either Dan or I wrote, I'm willing to amend what I said. But only so much as it represents an ignorance of what I'm pretty sure I knew from the start (that I am nonetheless "informed" of in almost every conversation I have with a person from a similar viewpoint). Absent that textual ana-lysis, I think you just assumed that I or Dan were ignorant of that fact. Because we must be, because we are irrationals. (via dogma).

"Only the hackneyed language of 'religious dogma' claims to be absolute and unchanging."

There is nothing in the sense of dogma that needs to be "unchanging" in fact the dogma of the Church (I am only ex-Catholic) has changed, and even has an established doctrine called "Revelation" by which it does accept change.

"Are you to have us believe that 'faith' or 'common sense' are the best tools for understanding the natural world."

Who said that? It seems to me that so binary is your belief system that if one says "fallible" something else must be demonstrably better?

To a degree "common sense" is a good tool. Years ago I read a study that said that scientists could find no physiological difference between waking and sleeping. Does this mean that I must wait until they do? No. My empirical experience tells me that I am awake, regardless of what researchers are able to substantiate clinically.

If you want to slap a label on empiricism and call it Science, fine. After all, we can conduct experiments of a type on this experience. But it is not like we waited until somebody did this to start feeling that we could safely call ourselves awake. The experiment in this case would only confirm our "intuition", not establish it.

But, again, this is not so much an argument about Science as it is what gets called "science". But Dan's point at the end of his post, if I may amplify it, is that to some degree Science is inseparable from what somebody calls "science". And I think he is allowing that if he is wrong, then regardless of whether a claim is or isn't science, Science, from a layman pov, is fallible. So in the end

Mr flynn, you are obviously articulate (more so than I) but being able to turn a clever phrase does not mean that you are not ignorant. free yourself from ideological argument and give science the respect it deserves."

satchmo: "free yourself from ideological argument and give science the respect it deserves."

But it seems that you supply a scientific definition for neither of the terms "respect" or "deserve". How does one quanitify respect? Or what is the particular quality of respect which is the proper brand which science deserves?

Left with no scientific method to resolve this "deficit of respect", I have to use more intuitive means.

You are essentially arguing that Dan is giving Science less respect than you think it deserves. You argue that by the use of "opinion" that Dan is discounting Science. Thus, it doesn't seem to me that you are gaging the difference between the respect that Dan or I think it deserves and what we give it. In fact you are judging from our praise or lack of it. Thus our view of how much respect it deserves, from your perspective, is only visible from how much praise you understand us to give.

And that gets back to my first part. If this is all "arguable", then argue it. It is rather oblivious to say that there may be a competant opposing side, but regardless of differences, you need to afford my level of respect---when it's pretty clear that you've misjudged even that.