Oddly, the Grand Debate is still going on. Normally I ignore all the blather in certain more woozy corners of the internet; the stuff about "a shift in consciousness" or "coming greater awareness" and such rot, but lately I find myself in an odd sort of agreement.

It feels like, over the last ten years and in a process still accelerating towards the crux of the conflict, the greatest shake-down between rationalism and emotionalism since the Enlightenment.

On the one side, we have an increased interest in science as well as a return to ACCESS to science in a way that seemed lost after the 40's; now, again, young people can gain access to the tools and data and experiments and do real things with current science (just as they once could with balloons and rockets and crystal radio sets). Parallel with this is incredible advances in almost every science, pushed by the information revolution. We have a new crop of young scientists who are eager and willing to talk to the public. We have better roles for scientists in our media. We have the ascension of the nerds (although somewhat abated by the market reversals not even Silicon Valley could weather). And we have the tantalizing potential, much closer to practicality (though in too many cases still tantalizingly far) for cutting-edge science to make major changes in how we live, in our own health and the health of our environment.

On the other side, there is a refulgence of fear and ignorance about science, abetted by political movements who wish to leverage the fear of the masses in order to win elections, snake-oil salesmen in order to bilk those same ignorants, and religions who see themselves as under attack. It is in this clime that evolutionary theory is under almost constant attack in school boards (and in op ed columns) across the United States, and where the offered counter to the most unabashedly intellectual president since Adlai Stevenson is a woman who proudly wears "I've made up my mind; I don't need FACTS" on her sleeve.

Although those on the dark side attempt to paint their opponents in a variety of belief-based modes; "Knee-jerk Obama supporters," "Believers in everything NASA tells them," "Worshipers of Saint Darwin," the contrast is actually between modes of thought.

Between going with the intuition and the gut and doing "what you know is right," and between not assuming you know the answer but instead testing your beliefs against reality before you act. Between faith that is celebrated for not being questioned, and between the questioning mode that says "I am the easiest person to fool." Between, in short, intellect and emotion.

The scientific method is a way of thought. It is a process of saying several different, and equally powerful things;

1) There are no unanswerable questions. There are no Delphic Oracles. ANYONE can do the observations, check the facts, learn the science, do the math.

2) Nothing should be sealed. Whether it is a piece of software or a government policy, if you can't unscrew the lid and look inside, be very, very suspicious.

3) No-one is free from error, and that includes yourself most of all. Check, and double-check, before you stake your life or your livelihood on an assumption.

This is a heady and a scary way to live. I have to think that at least some of the objection to this mode of thought is that it is too hard, and too scary...better to let god, and the politicians of your own party, make all the important decisions for you.



(This opens up an interesting way in which the Eloi do not understand Morlock thought. A Morlock is more likely to trust and to follow a doctor's advice. But not for any of the reasons the Eloi think. In the Eloi's point of view, facts are black boxes, and everything is moderated by the Authority it issues from. To trust medical advice, or to not trust medical advice, thus comes entirely from whether you consider them a legitimate authority. If they are the kindly old patriarchal family doctor, you probably trust them. If they are the suspiciously intelligent, possibly other-race, government doctor working for the faceless liberal bureaucracy, then you don't.)

(For the Morlock, the test is not on who the doctor is, but what she represents; is she a member of mainstream medicine, which has an appropriate series of checks and balances built into it? Does what she say meet up generally with how medicine, and how that particular condition, is usually portrayed? Is she willing to discuss condition and treatment with you?)

(This blindness to methods extends across every field the various-and-sundry UFO believers, Creationists, global warming denialists and so forth waggle their tongues about. They simply can't conceive of a mind set that doesn't spring from assumptions of authority, but instead is willing to approach any problem to see if it maintains internal consistency and consistency with other sciences. This is why conversation with them usually stops dead, usually somewhere around "You believe global warming? I bet you believe 9-11 was caused by some ragheads in a cave and vaccines are actually good for you!")