Originally Posted By: Canuck
Although there's always the bias introduced by the never-ending quest for funding dollars......


Good post Canuck,

I think your last sentence is key to the debate. Science cannot separate itself from the frailty of human nature - but it is often touted as something that is objective and strangely the only human endeavor that is trustworthy. As we have seen here - 'Science is ultimate truth'.

The use of the phrase Scientism is not about attacking science. It is about the philosophical position that is clearly held by some that science is superior to all other methods of improving human experience. Or even that it is the only viable method of enacting change.

All I am saying is that science is incredibly powerful and important, but currently it has no real involvement in sorting out the societal woes that currently beset us and may in fact have contributed to them in some way.

I am not a religious nut who cannot accept the validity of modern scientific knowledge such as evolutionary theory. I love SAGG because it attracts some great and interesting people and I enjoy the discourse, but mainly because I love science - it's triumphs and it's massive potential excites me.

I just think it should clearly understand both it's strengths and weaknesses. This can only serve us well and will also serve science because it sometimes suffers with slightly poor PR. I don't want anything to stand in the way of what it can deliver.

Blacknad.