clipped from: memetherapy.net S Andrew Swann:
Hell yes! And it comes mainly from two intractable and somewhat related problems; the confusion between science and religion, and the treatment of science as a Hegelian dialectic.
The latter problem is perhaps worse, in that it results in bad science. Western popular thought is obsessed with Hegelian dialectics. We throw one side against the other and believe the truth comes out of the conflict. It dominates our politics, our legal system, and the way most organizations deal with problems. The general public, most of whom probably have never heard of the scientific method, much less have had it explained to them, see scientific questions in the same light. This is especially true with matters of public policy. One side hires scientists that believe humans cause global warming; the other side picks scientists who believe its part of a natural cycle; the two debate the issue on CNN, and the “best” science is decided based on whoever makes the “best” argument (i.e. the most emotional, scary, and/or dramatic.). This is the primary justification of people trying to insert “Intelligent Design” into a science curriculum— after all, they just want to present an “opposing view” to Evolution. That can be a devastating argument against opponents who can’t even articulate why the premise is wrong.
Both problems cause a credibility leak for science. The first misunderstanding leads one set of people to oppose a scientific worldview wholesale as incompatible with their culture/philosophy/religion; and it leads the rest to ask science to answer questions it can’t actually answer. The second misunderstanding leads to scientific theory based on popular vote, which generally turns out incorrect. [I really like this argument, not enough attention is paid to the dangers of Hegelian thought -ed]