My opinion on science
Today's movie reviews are pretty sparse--the major movie opening is "The Day After Tomorrow." Looks like enjoyable crap to me. But something in Roger Ebert's review caught my eye. For those of you who haven't watched any of the almost-offensive, but mostly-ridiculous cross-branding of the NBA playoffs and this movie, TDAT is about what would happen were global warming to cause an "instant ice age" that cause weather catastrophes all over the world. Yes, it's that dumb.
So then Ebert says, "Of the science in this movie I have no opinion. I am sure global warming is real, and I regret that the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto Treaty, but I doubt that the cataclysm, if it comes, will come like this."
It's come to this. I appreciate that science is not, well, an exact science, but that science is not something that lay people can really have a particularly worthwhile opinion about. Scientists can differ on certain topics, but I'm quite confident that Roger Ebert is not qualified to express a very knowledgable "opinion" on global warming. Then again, this is a world where average joes debate evolution and intelligent design as if both are science and where it is news when polls show that people think global warming is a serious problem.
But science doesn't care about people's opinions. Science doesn't reflect attitudes. Science is, at its heart, the pursuit of truth. And truth, at least in science, is not a matter of opinion.