Reply to "The Danger of Science 'Denialism'"

I posted the link to the article I am responding to and you can access it by clicking on the topic.(though I doubt they will ever read this, but since this blog is purely for my own gratification, that's irrelevant).

The biggest portion I have troubles with is an issue that I have blogged about in the past: accept proof as truth.  The problem with this particular declaration is that proof is biased itself.  We have proof that the universe is expanding, that the universe is shrinking, that God (Yahweh) exists, that God doesn't exist, that evolution exists, that evolution doesn't exist, that black people have an average IQ of 62, that black people of have an average IQ on par with the world average (89).  We can present "proof" without third person verification and people are supposed to accept it?  We present "proof" from highly biased experiments or tests and people are supposed to accept it as fact?  I don't think so.  The article also demands that we ask for evidence.  Evidence is likewise easily skewed.  The article says to ask questions.  We can ask and ask and ask, but that doesn't mean we will get answers, much less correct answers or answers that answer that which we ask (non sequitur).

I do have to agree with the article on some points, however.  People don't ask questions, don't try to find evidence or proof.  People won't accept anything radically different than what they have been taught or come to accept as true and that is certainly a problem; it will certainly hinder human progress, as the article puts it.

The article also touches on people not accepting scientific findings because of the government and corporations.  They shouldn't just accept the findings, no matter what, but the government and big corporations have suppressed evidence and skewed tests/results more than enough times that it is a warranted reason to deny what is presented because we don't know what has been suppressed (if anything), or what was manufactured merely to give the conclusion that government/corporations wanted.

"Unfortunately, this fear is motivating people to replace science with a belief in magic, from seemingly harmless magic such as Ginkgo biloba, echinacia, and açaí, to tragic magic such as using coffee enemas to cure cancer, or even insisting that beet root can cure HIV. People fight genetically engineered food, and think it's wrong to patent life and crop seeds -- and they blame science for these problems. But these issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, not science."  Interesting, I think.  People fight engineered food because they don't know how it was changed and don't think they'll get an honest response if they ask, not to mention how engineered foods may react to their body's chemistry relative to non-engineered foods.  The "magics" are used just as much because they are cheaper as it is a matter of actual belief in their curative properties.  Ever heard of the placebo effect?  Enough placebo episodes are considered proof by some of their effectiveness.  Isn't that what science can be, according to this article?  The article is rather paranoid, to an extent, as well.  To some those issues are about law, morality and corporate greed, but not most; it's about poor science from mainstream sources, poor science put into popular "knowledge" and correct science being suppressed.