[H]ow about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?
“Re:The Anti-Science Smear” by Jonah Goldberg, National Review.
Many people seem to define “science” as anything technological & modern, rather than a discipline founded on experimentation, observation, and empirical evidence. They buy the “better living through chemistry” tagline hook, line, and sinker, and define all new chemical and technological inventions as safe and effective, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.
The process of experimentation and observation is science, though; not simply the invention and development of new chemicals and products.