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?

Science was honest when research was the plaything of wealthy amateurs who just wanted to know how things worked.

Once research became a career responsible for paying the mortgage & putting food on the table, it became far from pure.

Then instead of broadcasting a find to all, they were concealed, & used to gain more funding. This was bad, but then scientists started hiding negative results for career security, the taxpayer who fund it today, started being screwed.

Science funded for political reasons, as so much is today, is not science, but propaganda, & basically worthless.

Interesting comment Has, can you provide so much as a single example that supports your patently malevolent claim?

And name, rank and serial number please!
Rhrosty.

Why won't people listen? Why is it so hard to make them realise that climate change is not a problem, it is a SYMPTOM.

What is the real problem in the world? It is OVER-POPULATION!

Trying to do something about climate change without doing anything about over-population is urinating into the breeze!

Of course over-population is such an unpleasant subject that discussion is banned at the Oxford Union. So much for left-wing facists.

The first world population is more or less stabilised. The extra 3 or 4 billion we can expect over the next 30 years will come from the third world.

But mention this and the third world screams genocide!

The world is a finite place and nature has efficient ways of curbing excessive population. Four horsemen feature in most scenarios.

What is the best approach to fix this?

The chinese have shown us. A world-wide one child policy.

The chances of that being implemented are 2/5 of 4/8 of 1/116 of sfa.

Should be a fun century.