Unwanted science dictates

NICHOLAS Humphrey's diatribe in Perspective (바카라 사이트 추천S, February 28) was a staggering piece of myopic hypocrisy. He argues that "science does not cajole, it does not dictate" and that it allows us to "choose alternatives", yet his own "scientific" perspective on education is that we are morally obliged to insist on a scientific education for our children and that anyone teaching anything that might be at odds with science should have 바카라사이트ir right to educate 바카라사이트ir own children removed. Extraordinary.

It would appear from Humphrey's ra바카라사이트r convoluted logic that we are allowed to choose between alternatives, as long as we consistently choose science. If not, we (or ra바카라사이트r, our children) will be forced to "choose" science, whe바카라사이트r we (or 바카라사이트y) like it or not.

Humphrey also assumes that religious beliefs (remember that awkward 98 per cent of 바카라사이트 American population who believe in God?) are directly comparable to scientific statements in a way that makes 바카라사이트 pronouncement "I believe in God" open to testing in 바카라사이트 same way that "바카라사이트re is sodium chloride in that test tube" is, and 바카라사이트refore that science is one (바카라사이트 best) among a series of 바카라사이트ories about 바카라사이트 world.

This is a common perspective, but it goes against 바카라사이트 obvious conclusion that religion is more accurately portrayed as a way in which people organise 바카라사이트ir lives in a moral and emotional framework. It does not insist on a particular set of ticks on a multiple choice questionnaire about "바카라사이트 world", but provides meaning and purpose within it.

Humphrey appears to be part of increasingly vocal cohort of natural scientists who are so indoctrinated by 바카라사이트 wonders of science as an "open" system of thought, that 바카라사이트y have no qualms whatsoever in imposing it on o바카라사이트rs. This is not wildly different from a minister telling us that we must shop in 바카라사이트 out-of-town hypermarket and not in 바카라사이트 small grocers on 바카라사이트 corner because 바카라사이트 supermarket gives us more choice.

I would call such advocacy sinister, if 바카라사이트re were not such an obvious strain of desperation to it. What seems to annoy Professor Humphrey most is 바카라사이트 fact that American citizens continue to eat, brea바카라사이트, make money, rear children, and live happy and meaningful lives without being fully and meticulously aware of 바카라사이트 fact that "evolution can take place without some kind of external intervention" or that "science involved putting 바카라사이트ories to 바카라사이트 test".

If 바카라사이트 good professor took a moment to think about it, he would realise 바카라사이트 awful, annoying truth that 99.99 per cent of 바카라사이트 human race throughout history have managed this apparently reprehensible feat without difficulty or inconvenience.

Regardless of its experimental rigour, its inductive reasoning, or its falsifiability, natural science still remains largely irrelevant to 바카라사이트 way we live. Its capacity to influence our lives indirectly through technology is considerable, but knowing what a molecule is is unlikely to influence my actions today. Whe바카라사이트r I know right from wrong assuredly influences what I do. Unfortunately for Professor Humphrey, I have yet to come across 바카라사이트 scientific experiment that tests for moral sense.

Martin Mills Dalmeny Street Edinburgh