- Valentine Michael Smith, in Stranger in a Strange Land, R.A.Heinlein
I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the difference between scientific data, facts, and truth, or, more specifically, Truth.
It seems to me that much of the problem encountered in scientific diaries is that scientists are much addicted to working with large chunks of data, which can be run through a filter of statistical techniques to produce evidence, in varying probabilities, which supports or does not support varying hypotheses. No reputable scientist will claim that their results are the Truth in a matter, because all the data are never in. Statistical certainty, yes, but not Truth.
They are opposed, it seems, by a cohort of people who see Truth as something that either is, or is not. If you're telling the Truth, you can't hedge your statements, because then it's not Truth, it's only opinion, which has a much lowlier status in the overall scheme of things. Thus, if one has to resort to statistics to prove something, the thing cannot be True. Truths are ineffable; they belong to the Reality that underlies the physical world, which, being variously perceived by different people, cannot be Reality, but rather only an individual's perception of Reality. Again, simply a matter of opinion.
Confront this second group with the phrase "reality-based", and they will not blink, because their perceptions of Reality are in perfect agreement with their statements, and all that scientists can do in the physical world is to refine an opinion of physical reality. Since this physical reality is of secondary importance to the quest for Universal Truths, it means very little to someone whose primary quest is to determine those Truths.
This is, of course, immensely frustrating to the people who are working their asses off to try to present an accurate picture of physical reality. And in an argument between what is essentially existential philosophy, and science, there can be no winners.
But, alas, there can be losers. When science makes statements that are, essentially, practical conclusions from the data available, the existentialist must, almost automatically, deny their applicability to individuals. Thus, many of the people most vocal in the realm of whole earth thinking and environmentalism, women's rights and equal rights in general, and a large number of other essentially Democratic principles, are also the most vocal against the application of strict scientific methodology as a legitimate solution to real problems.
This diary doesn't propose any solutions to the problem - I don't have any. Except, perhaps that the various participants might keep this dichotomy in mind when the insults start to get personal. Because when you're coming from different concepts of Reality, it's not easy to find agreement on what each considers the basics, but it is possible to keep the disagreement from devolving into vitriol.