"Democracy is Teetering"

this coming from someone who claims in his sig:

Words are important. We use words to help define the reality we perceive; and so the battle for control of the meaning of words becomes ever more important and heated until it gets to the point where words lose their meaning altogether and nothing really means anything, until you can make it all mean whatever you want it to mean.

Everyone free to live in their own chosen reality.

Ah democracy.

I'd like to add to this that my main point is that science in itself is (like many things) not black or white. Criticising science doesn't need to mean being against it. As I wrote, I'm fine with what is often presented as "scientific method", but then there are scientific values that are to some extent idealistic, often neglected in science itself, and often sidelined by other factors. Science is supposed to be objective and free of personal (or institutional) interests, but it rather obviously isn't. There are errors in science, manipulation, salesmanship, bias by largely unconscious psychological and social processes, and outright cheating. Although experts in a certain field can detect some of this, the degree of specialisation and on the other hand the degree of interaction are so high that nobody can check everything that is involved in any scientific statement of enough sophistication. Also there is lots of controversy and disagreement, and there has to be according to scientific values.  The chance is not so low if you find a certain scientific paper claiming X you can find another one that claims the opposite, and you can't find the error in either (or you can find errors in both).

But then many of those who use this to dismiss science in general or any specific scientific statement don't have anything better on offer - they rely on sources for which there is no reason that they are less affected by all the issues that affect science. In fact what I value about science is not that it comes up with true and reliable results (sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't, and in many cases we can't know), but that it provides a space and an approach, some kind of moderation, for letting different views clash and in some cases for deciding between them (or occasionally for figuring out that some things cannot be decided in an objective and reliable manner; and occasionally reverting an earlier decision). And much of the most enlightening criticism of science comes from within science (or from philosophers associated with scientific institutions). 

So I'm not going to trust science and I'm not going to trust antiscience. And although I decide to hold some views, I will not make an ultimate choice what to believe and what not to believe, because going into the details of whatever reveals complexities and issues, and whatever side I decide to stand on, I want to understand the issues and the counterarguments. And I know that normally, if I understand the counterarguments well enough, they (or rather the best of them) cannot be easily dismissed, yet this doesn't mean the other side is right or overall better. 

With democracy it's similar. The shortcomings of democracy are obvious and serious - this concerns the practice of existing countries that sail under the democracy flag in the first place, but to some extent also the ideals of democracy and freedom. These issues are not to be dismissed and we have to deal with them. This doesn't mean I should trust somebody who says that democracy is actually worthless and only a charade, and the real truth is a world government that controls all of us gullible sheep or whatnot (although I'm happy about the fact that in a democracy they can say this and I can check their arguments).

What do you think about the Poetic Naturalism lecture that I posted a few pages back?