[[Yes; I’ve noticed that some of our evo correspondents like to change the subject a lot.... It almost seems a favored tactic — that, and the ad hominum attack.]]
It’s a tactic employed by chuildren who are caught in something- they try to quickly change hte subject- thinking htey are beign sneaky, and that hte grownups will forget about the central issue- when that doesn’t work, they resort to anger and name calling and blameshifting- Just got to wait it out, and htne readdress the central issue again until they fess up.
[[Nowadays, however, science is increasingly thought to be an “elite” enterprise, conducted by accredited professionals who are not in any way accountable to the public.]]
Bingo- the elitist snobbery is quite appalling really- We see it here quite often- and it’s a form of ‘quiet shouting down’ of hte opposition- when that doesn’t work, the conversation devolve into character assissinations- but in the end, their scientific ‘evidence’ is threadbare and useless for supporting hteir claims- all that puffed up huffing and snobbish elitist ‘scientific’ panting for nothing.
Indeed. And deeply troubling, again on Bohr's view.
Niels Bohr, the father of the Copenhagen School of quantum mechanics, was a major contributor to the development of nuclear physics. He saw where that could lead: Tremendous power for good or ill, in the hands of man. (Read: the scientists.) He recognized the propensity of science to say, "If something can be done, it should be done." And that's where atom bombs and embryonic stem-cell research come from.
That's evidently why Bohr thought it so important to keep the public informed on scientific developments. A well-informed public could keep science accountable to the public good....