Science Debate

[Bubba]

"Authority?"

nothing but an illusion maintained by the "experts" for their own gratification.

I don't know that I'd

agree with that, Bruce. Clearly, some scientists know more about certain subjects than others. I'd just point out

again that there's a simple rule: in science, EVERY appeal to authority is fallacious. Only appeals to the data

count. I'd recommend that lay people judge the integrity of experts by their level of reluctance in claiming

certainty (unless there are massive amounts of data).

I can't believe I am seeing that word in the

same sentence with "truth." Nobody knew that better than you James, back when we first met.

Also,

strictly speaking, science is only about approximating the truth. As every conclusion must be held provisionally, we

never count on getting there. No one should ever claim that science proves anything. Of course, that leaves openings

for pseudoscientists (like creationists and animal rights activists) to exploit with lay people.

I

grow increasingly amazed at the parallel between religious and scientific dogma and their common antithesis,

truth.

I hope that you wouldn't judge all science by that standard. Generally, in a given field, the

amount of dogma is inversely proportional to the amount of data. The pheromone field, given the paltry amount of

data, is heavy on dogma.

Bubba, I think we all share the hope that you will hang around for a long

time.

Thanks! I feel like I've jumped into the middle of a catfight.

I'd like to emphasize that

the publications of JVK's that I've read seem very reasonable and measured to me, totally unlike many of his

comments here. For the record, I'm a practicing sensory neuroscientist, just a couple of fields away from olfaction

and pheromones. I just get torqued when scientists who should know better play the authority card with lay people,

especially when they cite a paper and claim something is in it that really isn't. Science is about pondering and

describing the infinite amount that we don't know, using an inhumanly modest standard (see the Feynman quote above)

that we scientists often have trouble maintaining.