>This article is attempting to refute the value of the scientific method. And what exactly is wrong with a person attempting to challenge the value of science?

>This article is attempting to refute the value of the scientific method. And what exactly is wrong with a person attempting to challenge the value of science? >If we discuss articles like this seriously (who’s “philosophy” has been debunked 1000s of times already) then we’re giving voice and allowing doubt to sow about science. The average person sees science as a tool that humans have developed for our own benefit, and it is useful at the moment, because its applications improve our lives. It can, and will be thrown away when it stops being useful. If people start demanding an instant return on "investment" from science and stop caring about long term "science for the sake of science" type stuff, then thats it. Should you or I have an agenda to shape their thinking so that they always "believe" that science should be funded? >Edit: Just because it's hidden in a comment below, I'm adding it here. Some more examples of articles from The Weekly Standard to gauge whether they have a political agenda or not: Do you only read articles by people whose politics you agree with?