Anti-science?

I think I almost made it through 2 paragraphs. It's so crazy for a person who believes a number of falsehoods (e.g., the AIDS "epidemic" in Africa) to complain that people who simply want to discuss the facts are anti-science and people who have bought into the religion of Socialist Technocracy are objective evaluators of truth. mahuna

There has been a historical fight between accuracy and inaccuracy. Sometimes those in authority are right and sometimes those opposing the authority are right. If its about science then its aboiut the evidence standard to back up a assertion or/and criticism of a assertion. In origin subjects creationists do this very well and evolutionists , a great deal, assert authority or can't make a winning case. Global warmingolics can't make a good case too. I suspicious also the anti smoking thing is out of proportion to actual threat from smoking. The establishment simply blindly follows those it sees as its peers. Science moves forward by rebels and sometimes rebels against rebels. On the evidence peoples. Robert Byers

Quickly read thru the "subterranean war on science" and responses. Looks somewhat more like "Some views are sacred and should not be attacked". Tho he's right in that...noone should be physically or verbally threatening people who disagree with them. Also think...Some just want their views to remain semi sacred. Did not say that in my response, but that was the tone of the article. vikingmom