The principle still holds. As science advances and becomes more specialized, the most recent findings become ever more inaccessible to humankind in general and even to scientists outside the particular speciality. Even within areas of specialization there are often sharp disagreements about how to intepret data. That's why scientists' emails are such rich fodder for lawyers. The net result is that we are living in Tower of Babel whose foundations are weakening.
>And second, what's the takeaway, as they say in the nonprofit world, from
>your argument? We should just give up on science and worship trees again?
>
>Doug
I fear there are No Easy Answers. I think Aldous Huxley nailed it in Brave New World. Humankind seems to be screwed in separate but equal ways whether it it's ruled by scientific knowledge or primitive ignorance. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is the principle enunciated in the famous quote about czarist Russia: "Every country has its own constitution; ours is absolutism, moderated by assassination." In other words, it would be best for techncratic rule to continue -- moderated by the occasional humiliation and potential execution (bankruptcy) of particularly arrogant technocratic principalities such as Merck.
Carl