The impossibility—and the necessity—of distinguishing science from nonscience
The topic itself is important, but I thought a few statements were subtle attacks on the scientific community. Perhaps I&#x27;m too suspicious. But here are the statements, with my italics emphasizing the key parts:<p>&quot;In a time when expertise and science are <i>supposedly</i> under attack, some convincing way to make this distinction would seem to be of value.&quot;<p>It seems to me that science and rationality are under heavy attack in this country, and the author is attempting to undermine that view.<p>&quot;According to the New York Times, the Higgs discovery confirms “a grand view of a universe described by simple and elegant and symmetrical laws—but one in which everything interesting, like ourselves, results from flaws or breaks in that symmetry.” <i>Whatever that means</i>—but I’ll come back to the question of meaning later.&quot;<p>I take <i>whatever that means</i> as a dig at those highfalutin egghead scientists and their mouthpiece, the <i>New York Times</i>, who are trying to put something over on us. It&#x27;s unbecoming of an author who is himself a research scientist.<p>&quot;But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call <i>alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism</i> science as well, because in their time, each was pursued with sincere conviction by scientists who believed they were advancing reliable knowledge about the world? On what basis should we say that the findings of science at any given time really do bear a useful correspondence to reality? <i>When is it okay to trust what scientists say?</i>&quot;<p>I see this as more undermining of science.<p>&quot;What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more on <i>whom we trust</i> and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to be true.&quot;<p>Don&#x27;t trust liberal scientists.<p>As I say, maybe I&#x27;m too suspicious, and this author has no agenda.