The Sound Of Settled Science

Kate, thank you very much for posting that extremely interesting read.

A-theism is just as much a faith as theism? Get real. Atheism is skepticism pure and simple--do not believe in supernatural entities until presented with sufficient evidence. Do not believe is supernatural entities that are posited so as to be unfalsifiable.

Hasn't anyone heard of St Albert the Great?

Sheesh.

Known as Albert the Great; scientist, philosopher, and theologian, born c. 1206; died at Cologne, 15 November 1280. He is called "the Great", and "Doctor Universalis" (Universal Doctor), in recognition of his extraordinary genius and extensive knowledge, for he was proficient in every branch of learning cultivated in his day, and surpassed all his contemporaries, except perhaps Roger Bacon (1214-94), in the knowledge of nature. Ulrich Engelbert, a contemporary, calls him the wonder and the miracle of his age: "Vir in omni scientia adeo divinus, ut nostri temporis stupor et miraculum congrue vocari possit" (De summo bono, tr. III, iv).

"The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism."

Evos, as well as enviros and atheos, take note.

Hume and Popper, my favorite philosophers. Unfortunately, Popper was overshadowed by Wittgenstein, the Great Man, and Kuhn, the cheerleader.

"Atheism is just as much a faith as theism"

Agreed, there is nothing so annoying as a devout atheist; they're incapable of seeing their blind faith. Worse yet is the pseudo-sophistication they project, kind of a mellifluous ignorance.
Pretty sure I'll be stuck in agnosticism for the rest of my life, barring any divine visitations or amazing scientific observations.

Atheism is a religion,communism is a religion and muslim is a religion.The one thing in common that they have is an absolute intolerance with other beliefs.

Thus have I heard... The Buddha said "he who says 'this alone is true, all else is false' is a dogmatist and will fall into disputuation." Disputation is not profitable and must be avoided.

Dean Spencer - are you Santa Claus "agnostic" too? I cannot prove there is no supernatural entity Santa Claus who happens to employ cloaking devices. But because I ascribe to scientific scepticism, I do not believe there is such an entity, even though I cannot prove conconclusively Santa Claus does not exist. Ditto other gods.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

Thank you, Mr.Huxley. "Blind faith the one unpardonable sin".

Yes.

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science.

We have only a very few scientific "laws" like Newton's laws of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. Einstein's theory of relativity is still a theory. Evolution is still Darwin's theory. Global warming is a theory that may or may not be observed as happening now. These things are not settled.

Even the laws of gravity and thermodynamics break down at the quantum level, preventing us from having a grand unified theory describing everything in the universe.

Thanks, Kate, for referencing Mr. Brignell's excellent essay. It is, in my opinion of course, one of the best I have read in some time. It is now on its way to my mailing list.

One of Mr. Brignell's comments that resonated most strongly for me (as I have written about the signal to noise ratio problem here at SDA many times) was: "One of the most valuable ideas of modern engineering, lost in the noise, has been lost in the noise."

And, not to put too fine a point on it, when it comes to the thrust and substance of Mr. Brignell's essay, I think that getting into a fight between the theists and the atheists is just adding to the noise, not the signal. But what do I know, I'm just an a-deist. I think atheism is a kind of theism. And frankly, I think science is a kind of theism (note to self - run for the hills).

The point, it seems to me, is about axiology, colloquially known as value. The practice of science, whatever it be, has brought us the greatest and most important advancements in the history of man. That practice is based on skepticism, empiricism, and falsifiability.

The practice of religion, whatever it be, is not based on skepticism, empiricism, and falsifiability, and therefore, to the extent (and only to the extent) that it is misused for fraudulent purposes, it threatens the greatest and most important advancements in the history of man.

It is on that basis that I now consider the debate over the environment to no longer (at least for now) be about science. It is about the relationship between an at least quasi-religious organizational sub-system force and the institutions of politics and state.

That is, of course, not good news. However, as is my nature, I'll close with an optimistic comment. It's one thing for a religion to claim the domain of the unknowable, but the environment isn't unknowable. Indeed, in 10 or 20 or 50 years we will known exactly what the environment will be like in 10 or 20 or 50 years.

So, ultimately, real science will triumph, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's the same reason that in the long run free markets have always eventually triumphed over central planning. It's in the eating of the pudding.

The open question is: now many millions will suffer and/or die unjustifiably as the long-term human social systems work out the details of responding effectively to the latest assault on progress by those who would be our hypocrical overlords. But it's always that way, isn't it?

Over hill, over dale...

I confess blind faith in scientific scepticism, or at least blind faith in the principle of induction, that is, based on track record to date and the state of general knowledge, scientific scepticism appears to be the best prospect we currently have for improving our world. Until Santa Clause starts leaving new treatments for cancer under the tree, I'll park my faith in scientific scepticism.

Vitruvius, you miss the point. Brignell's piece is flawed to the core, stemming from its misanalysis of faith. Scientists have faith as much as theists. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called it the Soldier's Faith. No one can act without implicit faith of some sort.

What Brignell obscures is the more straightforward fact that environmentalists are abusing science for political purposes. The political purposes serve various aims, depending on the environmentalist in question.

SCIENCE IS NOT IN CRISIS. Scientists do stupid things all the time, they always have. Furthermore, junk science dies on the vine because it cannot predict the future, or account for the observations that other scientists make.

In this sense, the failures of science (which are myriad) are self-correcting. The science of climate change that is still around in 50 years will have thrown all the global warming stuff out because it was incorrect, could not predict the future, and could not account for many new observations.

THE PROBLEM is purely economic. In 50 years, the world's governments will have wasted trillions of dollars on a dumb idea, that is transparently dumb, even now.

Vitruvius: You have a very large brain!

Not really my forte but being a natural atheist (but a very tolerant one -- whatever gets you through the night, I say, as long as you leave me alone!) I don't feel I have to prove there ISN'T a God. But I'll be keen to look at the proof of the existence of a God: except, if there's a plane crash where 299 people are killed and one little baby survives, I won't accept that as proof, nor do I consider gaps in the science of evolution proof either as the Godless Anne Coulter tried to argue (which ruined her otherwise excellent book).

That said, I had to set aside Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" because I found his tone a bit too snotty for my taste. Having now finished Ibn Warrag's brilliant "Why I'm Not a Muslim" (modelled after Russel's "Why I am Not a Christian") I think I'll go back to the snotty Dawkins and finish him.

Finally, I'm cynical enough not to believe, like Hitchens, that religion = mass murder as the commies proved with their 100M victims in the 20th century.

Ok, let's see. I agree, Me No Dhimmi, that Dawkins and Hitchens, though they are both brilliant and sometimes witty men, are incorrect in the sense that they don't assign sufficient value to the normative human experience. I have that problem too, but (and pardon me for possibly sounding self-aggrandizing), I see that as my flaw. There is at least a degree to which I'm skeptical of them because I'm not convinced that they don't see their misbehaviour as their market. Ahh, the media market. Caveat emptor, eh what?

I do think that the dangers we face, as humans work though this fiasco, are, as you say DemocracyRules, largely economic (as Mr. Lomborg pointed out oh so long ago now), yet we should not forget that some economic problems translate into real suffering and death.

Let's see, next, I doubt that I miss the point, Murray, since I agree with you, so if I miss the point, that means you miss the point, and as I just mentioned, I don't think you do ;-)

Except for one thing. I don't think Mr. Brignell's essay is "flawed to the core", though I acknowledge that there are limitations to the perspective he takes in his essay, as there are to any perspective one may take, including mine in this comment.

I just think that net net, considering the limitations inherent in any such presentation, Mr. Brignell's is an excellent essay. Mr. Brignell nails the orthogonality of science and religion. Now go back to Pope Benedict's most excellent Regensburg lecture[1]. He expounded at some length on how religion and science are founded on different basis vectors, so though they are both vector effects, they have degrees of orthogonality.

I consider the vector space in which religion and science exist to be the faith vector space, or if you prefer, the hope vector space. I consider the axiological metrics against which various vectors with various degrees of orthogonality (such as religion and science) are to be measured are the classic notions of human good.

It is in that sense that I think that the fraudulent mis-use of environmental science by the enviro-mentalist (at least quasi)-religion is a threat not just to science, but to humanity at large.

To be clear: I am not slagging religion per se. Anything one can label has its pros and its cons. My point is that bad enviro-religion is threatening both the bounties of science, and good-faith hope-based religion, all in the name of dubious players and shady characters. That's the risk I see.

I don't think we should be wasting our time flagellating ourselves, as the enviro-mentalists seem wont to do, when we've still got 93% of the 21st-century improvement problem unsolved.

[1] sagaciousiconoclast.blogspot.com/2006/09/pope-benedicts-regensburg-lecture.html#2

Me No Dhimmi:

You and I would get along well in our views.

Atheism has actually gone through several definition changes over the ages (check it out on Wikipedia) and, at one time, it could have been called a religious belief of its own. But, not by the colloquial definition accepted today.

Most recently, atheists have been the ones known to rely on science in the science-versus-religion argument. When someone tried to assert a "fact" based on religion, the counter was for the other side to invoke the name of science. No matter where your views fell, at least one could say that religion (faith) had some balance given to it by science.

The problem now, of course, is that science (or more properly, the name of "science") is being used to push a religion. That is the problem here.

I really recommend people read the transcript of Michael Crichton's speech "Environmentalism as Religion" at 3w.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html.

It's the sixth one down in the list on that page.

The word atheist was coined by religious people. It is not what non-believers would otherwise call themselves. Probably, they would say merely "I am not superstitious."

Murray wrote:

"A-theism is just as much a faith as theism? Get real. Atheism is skepticism pure and simple"

No sir. That would be agnosticism. An atheistic world view posits that there is no God and then develops ethics accordingly. Am I wrong?

But, obviously, since there is no (scientific) evidence, to posit that there is no God requires the same faith as anyone who posits that there is a God. To suggest that your atheism is somehow superior to my theism defies logic.

I ask you this. What is logical difference between the following two statements?

"I don't believe in God, therefore this is no God."

AND

"God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore there are no atheists."

Brad in Waterloo:

since there is no (scientific) evidence, to posit that there is no God requires the same faith as anyone who posits that there is a God

Dude...you have a bit of a problem with logical fallacies.

In science - as with in anything else, you cannot prove a negative. No one can prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist...you can only show that it is unlikely given his supposed habits and the fact the evidence doesn't mesh with what we can prove.

If I offer you a million dollars if you can prove that elephants exist (a positive assertion), you just have to go and get one. But, if I instead challenge you to prove that pink elephant do NOT exist (a negative assertion), you're stumped. That's how religion works.

Similarly, if I tell you that I am 100% sure that the Earth will be destroyed by a meteorite in 100 years unless you and everyone else gives me your life-savings so that I can build a machine to stop it, you are quite justified in saying, "Show me proof, first." And if I reply by saying, "Prove to me that it won't happen", you will, quite justifiably, pass me off as a nut.

This is the case with global warming. We are being told that some sort of doomsday is coming because of human activity (a positive assertion). Skeptics say, "Prove that it is warming, that it is our fault, and that anything can be done by us to mitigate it." This is a reasonable position to take. Sure, if we could prove that the Earth was actually cooling, or that the warming had another provable cause, or that the progress was unstoppable, we could end the argument there. But, the problem is, because it can't be proven, it has become a matter of faith.

A side comment about atheism:

Strictly speaking, atheism isn't a belief, it's the absence of a specific kind of belief. But, strictly speaking, a "UFO" is an observed object that is impossible to classify as anything definite at the time it was observed.

Look at what's been done with the latter term: it contains a real hint as to what often has happened to the former. There's something in the human brain that seems to choke on a concept whose referent is a set rather than an object.

Brignell has stretched an analogy well past its elastic limits, in a misguided attempt to impute guilt by association. He misrepresents the historical record regarding the development of an empirically prescriptive ethos, which is at core the hard definition of "science", by blending it with philosophical positions that themselves were reactionary developments to the fragmentation of religious hierarchicalism and the individualization of belief. He fails to make the distinction between religion and superstition, likely because he does not see a difference between the two. He misrepresents Christianity, thinly disguised as "older religion", by attributing to it ludicrous theological positions (it is NOT about sex). Time constraints forbid my more thoroughly critiquing his scribblings, which are not without some redeeming features - his diagnostic attempts and symptomatic descriptions do bear some congruence with reality. It is his causal analysis that is dreck.

Brignell can call Karl Popper a "sceptic" but this is deficient...Popper perfected the rational equation to produce simple truths through elimination call it "critical rationalization"...unlike the hegelian dialectic, his reasoning is multi dimensional but always grounded in known facts leading to more soon to be known fact.

I agree that politics (which relies on the simplistic Hegelian dialectic to infect logic with myth trough synthesis) has infected scientific reason...science has consequently become hysteric, manipulative, deceptive, agenda driven and a number of other foibles asimilated through political "synthesis" of the scientific discipline.

Brignell is correct in calling the great proponets of methodical reason "sceptics" but it is an over simplification as their disciplines of deductive reasoning are far advanced to the fallible simplistic processes used in today's "pop" science.

It is I think unfortunate that when it is pointed out that some organization X is abusing the human experiences of faith and religion, whatever they may be, that some people who identify with some religion Y argue as if the criticism of X is some how a priori a criticism of Y.

The point of Mr. Brignell's essay is, in my opinion, not an indictment of faith, it is an indictment of the abuse of faith and her products in the name of fraudulently self-serving enviro-mentalists.

It's a good thing we don't pray to pink elephants.

So if God answers your prayer, does that make the answer falsifiable?

Further if one has an interior 'religious experience' as God reveals himself to you, is your experience falsifiable?

But of course if one wanted absolute certainty then it would not be called "faith".

What happens when politicians act in 'bad faith'?

Vitruvius re: Hitchens, Dawkins:
There is at least a degree to which I'm skeptical of them because I'm not convinced that they don't see their misbehaviour as their market.
Yes, exactly. Hitchens is one very bad boy, former Trotskyite and all (still can't figure out how he could have been one past, say, age 23). And that voice!

Jim Petit said:
The word atheist was coined by religious people. It is not what non-believers would otherwise call themselves. Probably, they would say merely "I am not superstitious."
Indeed. And as I always say (to myself mostly) we will be fully civilized when all office buildings have 13th floors, eh?

I think one of the traps of religiosity is the notion that there would have been no morality without Religion. Myself -- I think the basis of morality is really self interest, i.e., the golden rule.

And the spelling above should have been Ibn Warraq (not g) and what a great book it is!

One point that broke me up: Why does God reveal to a single guy out in the wilderness or in a cave like Mo? Why not before 10s of 1000s like say at a football stadium? A lot more efficient!

"Why does God reveal to a single guy out in the wilderness or in a cave like Mo? Why not before 10s of 1000s like say at a football stadium? A lot more efficient!"

This is a stupid Islamocentric comment. There is a religion whose adherents claim that such mass revelations were done - Christianity.

wlmr - I strongly agree with your rejection of Hegel and opting for Popper. I'm a fan of Charles S. Peirce- far more complex than Popper - and Popper was indebted to Peirce.

Agree with bryceman's - very nice argument; right - you can't prove a negative. Basic logic and basic Aristotle. And basic common sense.

I'm an atheist; I don't care about the semantics; Essentially, I don't believe in a metaphysical agential force to the universe. Nothing to do with faith, but, as Peirce/Aristotle said, you can't start with nothing; you have to begin your analysis with some axioms.

I certainly don't think the complexity of our universe is random; I think it's self-organized.
It is certainly organized...

Brignell's essay - very nice. Religion is based on a knowledge base that is not open to doubt; scientific knowledge must be open to doubt or it isn't scientific knowledge. Simple as that, I think.

Agree with vitruvius, safe up in his hills, that many lives will be lost within the non-science of political environmentalism - just as they are being lost in the fight to retain tribalism in the ME - long, long past its time-for-death. Both ideologies are faith-based, abandoning reason and empirical observation.

vitruvius-up-in-the-hills, take a good look at alpine plants (my favourite type); they are exquisite, complex adaptors.

Just to set things straight on atheism. Atheism is not a belief, it is a philosophical position as to the existance of gods. Just as theism is.

And, just as there are many theist "philosophies" there are many atheist philosophies. So let's cut the crap about ahteism being a belief or religion. It is essentially a position of no-belief. And, frankly, the necessary starting point for philosophy.

WOW !! Amazing article Kate.

If it would have been required reading for all the world's newspaper editors ten years ago, Kyoto would have never got off the ground :)

Who can seriously argue with that reasoned piece ??

To Vitruvius (June 13, 2007 6:33 PM): Bravo!

Excellent article. My fear is that leftist/environmentalists may succede in suppressing science by simply defining it away i.e. they will co-opt the term "science" to mean anything but the scientific method as we understand it in the same way they co-opted the terms "peace" to mean world communism and "exploitation" to mean any free market transaction or "democracy" to mean authoritarian oppression. Presenting Al Gore's lunatic ravings in science classes while intimidating sceptics i.e. those respecting the true scientific method is an indoctrinational (is that actually a word?) device currently being used on our children. Heaven help us if it succedes.

Regarding intolerant Atheists.

I have been Atheist since age 14. At that age I found I could not believe in supernatural phenomena. I reasoned that we cannot defy gravity, cannot be invisible, cannot travel in time and Santa cannot hit every house in a 12 hour period.

In my case I call the A in Atheist Ambivalence. I don't spend much time dwelling on that theory. I do not believe that any supernatural being created the universe as a backdrop for the likes of us. How the universe came to be is simply something that is beyond my comprehension and I can live with that mystery.

I also don't believe the begging on bended knee is going to prod any Supernatural creator into being kinder to Africa, nor that I will win the next lottery. Actually I am cursed with only believing in things that can be proved. If anyone can prove I am wrong, I will keep an open mind. Meanwhile, call me a skeptic ... or an Atheist.

So far as morality is concerned, I use common sense and logic to guild me. It is illogical to be a despot. Life is much more pleasant, orderly and potentially prosperous when everyone is well behaved and exercising control over their potential demons. This state of being does not require faith nor a belief, nor a threat by a clergyman. It is merely a logical conclusion that I cannot ignore.

I am not intolerant of people who embrace religion if it is of the Christian variety where love and kindness is at the root of it. In that case, we have more in common than not. I see those folks as being perhaps too lazy to use their facalties to arrive at similar conclusions and have take religion as a shortcut or social aid to get them to a place where they can relax and feel a bit more secure in their life.

I am intolerant of Islam which so far has proved to be the opposite. I am also not tolerant of hard core Christians who want to sell me their brand of morality anymore than I am tolerant of a telemarketer trying to get me to mortgage the equity in my home to take that dream vacation I so richly deserve.

One thing I do believe, is that those who don't wish to embrace a belief in the supernatural can co exist with those who do. But that will require some logic on both sides.

Regarding Socialism/Communism, that has proved to be a failed system in more than one case. The evidence is all around in Eastern Europe, Russia, Cuba and China (who has already embraced capitalism of a sort to bail themselves out.). Anyone who still believes it is the right path to Utopia is indeed a denier or perhaps and A-Capitalist.

Finally, UFOs is not supernatural phenomena. If they do exist, they may simply be from a far more technologically advanced society who likely are too afraid of us to land. That is yet to be proved I understand that. I will wait.

IMO, this is the jist of of it all;

[ It is part of human nature that we do not like to admit making a mistake, even to ourselves. So if, for example, we buy a magic device that by some mysterious means improves the fuel efficiency of our car, we drive a little more conservatively in order to prove that we have not been had. Religions exploit this weakness as a means creating and reinforcing commitment. If someone can be induced or coerced into making a sacrifice they then have a stake in the cause. ]

A stake in their career. And pension too !!

The whole key in the Kyoto Kultism was to get the media onside early and quickly to help indoctrinate as many as possible.

If the belief can survive ten or twenty years enough will be "stake holders" who will not give it up easily. Even after they do not "believe" anymore.

It is bad enough to Gore and Suzuki and Dion that they have been had. It would be one thing if they could just wimper away. But if they admit they have been had how would they deal with the anger of their millions of followers ??

******I certainly don't think the complexity of our universe is random; I think it's self-organized.***********

the key ingredient here is "time", chaos will unravel and show patterns (organize) given enough time

Murray, science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of God. A scientifically sceptical person who declares himself to be an atheist is at odds with himself, and I say that as one who leans heavily in that direction.

Ever since the dawn of mankind there has always been beliefs. And there have always been thoses that will take advantage of the believers.

As Patric Moore said, the best scams are those that are hardest to disprove. At least initially.

They also happen to make the best articles with which to sell dead trees.

And to think Hollywood gave Gore an Oscar !!

Not worth the plastic it is made of.

[ One of the most exploited ways of angling the news is by “ratchet reporting”. News of unusual warm weather, for example, is given copious coverage, while cold weather is studiously ignored. ]

Is this legal ??

Belief in God does not equal to superstition. Superstition comes in when someone believes that God is going to do things for him. That is where religion took off in another direction.
Descartes’ conclusion, contrary to popular belief was that ‘it exist because it thinks’ that would be mind. Now just think for a moment, the spark of thought, it is there, but where. The Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel painting where God talks to Adam, the gap between their fingers illustrates this very good.
That is not a physical activity, though some would say that it is an electro/chemical kind of process. Think of music that you like, you can’t touch it, you can’ see it, you can’t smell it, though it is there and it gives you pleasure, this is purely spiritual thing.
Anyway so far as GW situation, an accurate description is, as in Brignell’s article, ‘might or might not’.

It is not possible to characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he found in those who preceded him, carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat, approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees the truth and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas's summary and statement. Not that he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad 1um).

[ That the media know that they are peddling untruths is demonstrated by these tricks they get up to. If they were confident of the truth of their case there would be no need to fake the coverage. They have been frequently caught out faking their numbers and graphs, but only a few internet surfers know about it. If you think you have a good case, you can afford to present both sides, but they don’t. The great majority of the population have no idea that there is an alternative view. That is not science, it is religion. ]

".... only a few internet surfers know (the truth)"

The ones at sda certainly do !!

[ Religion has always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many centuries it took the form of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the “Mandate of Heaven”. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any imposition. ]

Before the masses knew what a phenomena (natural) called an eclipse of the sun was, the religious leaders used it to their advantage;

REPENT !! 'Or tomorrow the gods will turn off the sun.'

Can you imagine the fear !!??

[ As the Jesuits say “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” ]

Sounds like Gore in our public school system.

Their still trying to cm we came from apes and all they can show is some fake models and a few bone fragments and when they thought that PILTDOWN MAN was the missing link and when they came up with a model claiming birds came from dinosoars and it turned out to be a fake now their claiming we are related to chimps what a load of bull kaka i mean that wacko CARL SAGAN said that EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN FACT. WHAT A LIAR.Sagan is no longer with us becuase he sailed his goofy sea urchin shaped starship IMAGINATION into the ROLUMAN NUETRAL ZONE and the vaporized him with the PLASMA WEAPON, KABOOM

The alternative to not believing in God is believing the universe, and everything in it, self-assembled from nothing.

Now >i>that's faith.

This self- post time over bett assembled. er

The above post is self-assembled. Given enough time, it will become a marvelously coherent, self-assembled post.

With any luck, the brains of anyone reading it will have self-assembled sufficiently to make sense of this immaterial communication from one mind to another.

What an amazing universe we atheists inhabit --

matter from nothing

uncaused organization

consciousness from non-consciousness

thought from non-thought

conscience from non-conscience

logic from nothing

reason from nothing

love from nothing

Move along, folks. There's nothing to see. There's NOTHING out there.

We're staking our lives on it.

Slightly off-topic, but still has some relevance.

I am a diabetic. I was prescribed three different medications to control my blood sugar. About a month ago, I read an article referring to "low carb diets" - no bread, rice, potatoes, pasta, etc. I switched to it, and found my blood sugar, which had been running at twice normal levels despite all the medication, dropped to normal. (As a side benefit, I've lost almost 20 lbs!)

But, despite numerous studies showing the effectiveness of these diets in lowering blood sugar, bad cholesterol, and losing weight, the official position of the Canadian Diabetic Association (and the US equivalent, the ADA) is that we should be eating 6-7 servings a day of what I now call "brown food".

Apparently, these associations have become so wedded to their position, they can't change them despite all the evidence. That's hardly what I call "scientific". With diabetes affecting 10% of all Canadians - and the rate is rising - how many people will suffer the complications, such as blindness, amputation, and death? And, perhaps more to the point, how much strain will this put on our medical system? I think these assocations are being completely irresponsible by ignoring the benefits of low carb diets.

BTW, I have discontinued two of the medications, and cut the third in half while still keeping the sugars in the normal range.

One (possibly inapplicable, help me out here, philosophers and mathematicians) implication of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is that in an axiomatic internally consistent description of the universe (such as the scientific method) there can exist a truth that is non-provable. That is, something may be true but not provable via the scientific method; indeed, the very definition of "faith" requires this non-provability. Such truths of necessity lie outside the realm of science. So, those atheists or agnostics who demand proof of the existence of God are basically demanding a paradox, proof of the unprovable.

"The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a "The science is settled" when real scientists know that science is never settled."

He's got that one nailed.