| > I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset. The scientific method doesn't include the word "belief" at all. If you reduce it to belief, it's not science anymore, it's religion. > In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government to make decisions based on facts and methods of finding out more facts. Science is a process, not a collection of hard facts. The only hard facts (or the claim of them more accurately) come from religion. Science concerns itself with building speculative models that have predictive power, and trying to match observation with prediction of the models. Redundancy (peer review) is used to REDUCE (not ELIMINATE) errors. Social and cultural factors can result in false positives and false negatives in peer review. That's it in a nutshell. The models don't reflect reality, they only reflect an approximation of aspects of reality in given contexts. Anyway, the problem is that people do have a religious instinct. And when they're incapable of perceiving science with all its subtleties, they simply reduce it to a religion, which requires the belief that it's basically flawless, it provides hard facts, the best solutions, and that it's uniform (and any contradictions are just examples of "interests" corrupting it). While politics are very corrupted and often result in incompetence rising to the top, even it weren't the case, those competent politicians have no single place to turn to to understand what "science" thinks on any given problem of society. Science isn't a guy, so it has no opinion. |