As a lover of science and a longtime skeptic throughout a series of changes of political viewpoint, I've learned to hate when anyone tries to wrap his/her political viewpoint in the mantle of "science" or "skepticism" (as opposed to proper understanding of a scientific issue). I've yet to see anyone do this without the upshot being, "Yes, the political beliefs I already had [whatever they were] are shown to be objectively correct - thanks to Science!"
What makes people so susceptible to nonsense in public
discourse? Is it because we do such a miserable job in
schools teaching what science is all about—that it is not a
collection of facts or stories but a process for weeding
out nonsense to get closer to the underlying beautiful
reality of nature? Perhaps not. But I worry for the future
of our democracy if a combination of a free press and
democratically elected leaders cannot together somehow more
effectively defend empirical reality against the onslaught
of ideology and fanaticism.
What I don't get: "As I listen to the manifest nonsense that has been promulgated by the likes of right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex-governors in response to the effort to bring the U.S. into alignment with other industrial countries in providing reasonable and affordable health care for all its citizens, it seems that things have only gotten worse in the years since I first wrote those words."
First, this idea that "right-wing fanatic radio hosts and moronic ex-governors" have a monopoly on bad science is at best arrogant and at worst remarkably deceptive. Second, what is the Scientific American doing writing about advocacy for public healthcare in the first place? Nevermind the vast array of policy alternatives that this space entails, or that the bills presented before congress now do little to nothing to meet the original objectives even President Obama set.
Scientific American is a left-wing rag. I read it regularly as a teen ager, but quit in the 1980s when EVERY ISSUE had a prominent pseudo-scientific article advancing lefty causes, primarily disarmament.
"... English novelist George Orwell was remarkably prescient about many things, and one of the most disturbing aspects of his masterpiece 1984 involved the blatant perversion of objective reality, using constant repetition of propaganda by a militaristic government in control of all the media. ..."
I added this article to highlight a new phase in science that is occurring - advocacy. Why advocacy and not just science? Because it's getting to the point where mere "facts" isn't good enough to bring about the changes necessary.
It's not the science where the problems lie. Science can be refuted by bad evidence. Scientific theory becomes fact when the evidence gathered by observation or experiments be supports the theory. The problem we have now is a "people" problem where people who don't see or want changes made to our carbon economy.
The change from pure science and scientific reporting to scientific activism is a feature of more active scientists in recent history and include Richard Dawkins (evolution,religion), Tim Flannery (land use,disruption of ecosystems, carbon emissions). In the past dissent, contrary arguments would not have been tolerated. In Galileo's ~ http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Galileo.h... day scientists with ideas like Dawkins and Flannery would have been quietly silenced like Galileos advocacy ~ http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/galileo.html of the Copernican principle ~ http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/copercosmol.html
Presenting the science is not enough to create change in the way leaders make decisions. Decisions based on some "rational" basis instead of "belief" or "influence".
Perhaps instead of spouting articles without understanding you should read a bit about falsation and Karl Popper's contributions to the philosophy of science.
Falsifiability is the cornerstone of the scientific method.
Not counting the irony of you linking to the Wikipedia article named "Argument from Ignorance," I absolutely despise the method of simply linking to an article of logical fallacies as a proof that the author had no legitimate point.
I hereby christen the "Argument from Latin Wikipedia Page." This is categorized as an idiot grappling to a very specific point in the article and attempting to refute it by naming a Latin logical fallacy, usually erroneously and with no explanation. Punishment for "Argument from Latin Wikipedia Page" may involve being bodily thrown from a moving vehicle.
