Because heliocentrism predicted things that geocentrism couldn’t, it became the accepted theory. Because it provides a basis for a simpler overall model of planetary motions, it was accepted quickly.

So, science IS a way of understanding the world, but it is a flawed one in the sense that it only attempts to explain things that can be supported by evidence. The supernatural is thrown out- for me, that is not a big loss. But if you are less of an Ignostic than I am, perhaps you would rather know for sure whether or not there are magical tentacles, or heavenly beings.

The proof of this is of course that very dogmatic religious response that this will generate, IE: “You don’t understand Science!” “You’re ignorant!”…

There’s no real way to prove that gravity holds the planets in an elliptical orbit around each other or around the sun. None.

Noone really knows what electricity is.

You can’t infer from natural selection that given enough time and combination with mutations it will cause a theoretical ancestral
organism that exists only in ones mind to turn into another
theoretical organism that exists only in one’s mind.

You cannot tell the distance to the stars or determine their size or composition with any real certainty.

There is no doubt whatsover in my mind that scientists are very intelligent people for the most part, but they could, at least in theory, use that intelligence to prove that the earth is a flat disc on the back of a turtle. If enough scientists hold this belief they will find evidence for it and they would be able to convince the world.

Well, yes, Larry, it should be self-evident that there are no religious “facts.” Religion deals with three impenetrable questions: where did we come from, what happens to us after we die, and why are we here. These questions aren’t subject to factual proof, only subjective belief.

I do believe that there is a large and legitimate subject matter that science can study and upon which science can render legitimate opinions.

“Where people have no foundation to render religious opinions, we should ignore their opinions and we should equally ignore their protests that they are being deprived of freedom of expression.”

For some, that will appear to be “nonsense” because, supposedly, there are no religious “facts”, only opinions. This is partially so because science debaters insist on measuring things that cannot be measured. The scientific method is limited to science, by definition.

You could also castigate ‘economic opinions’ to obfuscate the perversity of a particular worldview. We all make economic decisions based on our personal measurements in daily transactions, and thus our personal model of the economic system is different from that presented by those who it actually serves. You don’t need formal training to understand economics. This is only required when you become a purveyor of that agenda.

Science is no more sacrosanct than any other human endeavor. I prefer to avoid multiple tyrannies of smucksperts.

Huge numbers of people who criticize scientists are merely one good question away from showing themselves to be unqualified to render any opinions at all. They have no deep understanding how their claims could possibly be true. They offer ungrounded opinions as attacks on rigorous applications of the scientific method.

A commonly-encountered example is the creationist who characterizes evolution as “a theory that says complex life forms have arisen randomly.” This characterization is completely false. Although new phenotypic traits might initially appear randomly, natural selection (the “weed” of the “breed and weed”) ruthlessly and rigorously filters them out whenever they fail to enhance fitness of a species. There is an unrelenting logic to natural selection; it is the opposite of randomness.

Yet the media often gives know-nothing Creationists a free pass. Their “opinion,” that evolution is an entirely random process, is rarely questioned. They are no foundation for rendering opinions in the scientific arena. A short pop quiz will show them to be foolish, but the media so often fails to administer such a quiz.

And that’s just one example. Opinions are substituted for facts everywhere one looks. One-day old zygotes are said to have “souls.” There is a practical way to burn coal cleanly. Homosexuality is said to be unnatural. Homeopathic medications work. Tarot cards and astrology are often said to offer us meaningful guidance. Facilitated communication was said to allow autistics to show their inner brilliance.

And on and on. Each of these claims is one good question away from being shown to be foolish.

Where people have no foundation to render scientific opinions, we should ignore their opinions and we should equally ignore their protests that they are being deprived of freedom of expression. If only the Media would have the guts to ignore nonsense. If only claims of pretend science consisting only of hope or speculation didn’t so often make captivating stories . . .

Another big criticism I hear a lot is that science constantly “changes its mind”, or that decades of scientific research “was wrong” in light of some paradigm-shifting knowledge. People who don’t understand the scientific method seem to think a shift in understanding belies a flaw in science itself. The reality, of course, is that science only needs time and rigor to shake all of the incorrect theories out of the woodwork. It’s not science’s fault, it’s just human limitation that leads to faulty understanding.

(That last bit comes up especially often in criticizing the social sciences, and claiming that they aren’t, in fact, sciences. But that’s a rant for another day.)

Sorry I scooped you, Dan.