I was just reading an opinion piece in New Scientist, and it clarified for me a problem which is common today, when science is questioned by holders of irrational, unsubstantiated and usually religious beliefs.
"A second problem of dealing with climate change solely in scientifc terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage. 'The science is still uncertain,' they cry - and they are right. If it wasn't uncertain, it wouldn't be science. As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot be definition be scientific."
Get off the fence, by Mark Lynas. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 25.
In the same New Scientist, there's a quote from a scientist who's probably taken the right approach.
"'We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it.' Eugenie Scott, director of the US National Center for Science Education, explains why scientist boycotted the Kansas State Board's hearings on teaching evolution. She branded the hearings a 'political show trial' (The New York Times, 21 June)"
Soundbites. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 16.
This is a continuing problem, as various religious beliefs are promoted in the context of so-called uncertainty in science. The question, though, is really what level of testing will the religious literalists allow of their own positions. I'm increasingly aware, and I hope committed, to the importance of testing my own statements, not just those of others. Let's see everyone do this.
This is so important, as Intelligent Design (ID) is promoted as an alternative to Evolution. And one of the arguments is the bland statement that Evolution is just a theory, so alternatives should be taught. And similarly, as we hear of attacks on fears of global warming.
If you honestly want to test your beliefs, have a look at the complexity and rationality of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and compare it with some rant from an anti-greenie.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm