Yes and well argued, except where scientists shouldn't come out and publicly contradict other so called scientists.

Take the fluoride example!

Most dentists and doctors will agree its application with regard to improved dental health, is only ever topical, whilst others can enumerate at least 50 reasons not to imbibe sodium fluoride.

But particularly as its a very effective rat poison and may become a cumulative health hazard if imbibed; as some case studies seem to show.

And let's not confuse benign and essential calcium with poisonous sodium.

And yes, there may well be some fluoride in the morning cup of tea, but only as calcium fluoride, a far more benign form of naturally occurring fluoride.

And indeed, a trace element actually essential in healthy cell growth or mitochondria health?

And if the likes of Lord Munchen are able to come out and make their nonsensical claims in the public area, then that's where they and all such spurious claims must be challenged.

We have and when it comes to climate change, engineers and geologists, or so it would seem, expressing countervailing opinions from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists!

I mean would you ask a pilot to cure your cancer, using his or her knowledge of medicine.

Yet we swallow what the like of Lord Munkden claims, even though he and a whole host of others hasn't got a scientific leg to stand on in the field of climate science!

Just absolute faith,it would seem, in his own infallibility?

Remarkably similar, I believe, to those who believe we should mass medicate the entire population with sodium fluoride!?

Including breast feeding mums and old folks!

Perhaps a bit of fluoride will help to stop the shimply shplendid denturesh rattling when we shpeak, eshpecially if you're getting around with the worst shet in town.

The author, seemingly, doesn't want others to contradict or challenge him on fluoride; but especially, with the revealed but pertinent facts?

I reckon, just get it out there warts and all, and then let the chips and public opinion fall where they may. More tea anyone?
Rhrosty.

A good piece, well argued as Rhrosty said. The problem of communicating science to a community which is to a large extent both scientifically illiterate and primed by popular culture to accept as axiomatic the explanatory power of science is exercising a lot of minds. The psychological term for the predisposition to hold onto pre-formed opinions strongly despite contradictory evidence is "motivated cognition" and it can be extremely influential, even on the work produced by scientists.

There was a study done a little while ago into the prevalence of what's known as "p-hacking", which is the often subtle manipulation of results which don't support the primary argument in a paper. This is especially prevalent in social sciences it turns out (although not confined to those fields) and can cause significantly flawed interpretations of experimentally-obtained data. Even scientists don't much like uncertainty, it seems, especially in a world in which their research lives or dies on the next grant round...

Yale University has an excellent project being run out of their Law School, the Cultural Cognition project, which is trying to get at the roots of just the phenomena you describe.

http://culturalcognition.squarespace.com

[Deleted for abuse.]

[Deleted for abuse.]

This reference provides a very "elitist" understanding of the naive realism upon which the "common sense" of the man-on-the-street is based.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/simple_materialism.html
Also:
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science

I'm not sure about this ... One must concede, without science there would be no jumbo jets. But can we survive without them? Yes.
Travel would be slower and a slower life would follow. Is that bad? Not at all!
I feel the best way to compare the need for a focus on science, is to compare it with music!
All humans love music in one form or another. All humans find exploration rewarding. Isn't that what drives science? Totally.
I think science therefore, is no more important in life than is music.
What about a few more dollars for musical research?

And as an addendum, all are not by any means at all, equal before the law, ( as the author stated)! Where is Eddy O'Bied?