Why science needs a voice, and why current journalism and democracy is malfunctioning:
As an example of what I mean, I am willing to bet that despite having had little interaction for over a decade, I can predict Rich Puchalsky’s position on carbon capture and sequestration.
I can’t, however, predict TB’s or Eli’s or Simon’s. That’s why I’d rather read what they have to say about it, and not so much what someone like Rich does. I would trust them to provide some information, not just an emotional security blanket and identity politics.
This attitude, more than anything, is what science bloggers have to sell, and I mean “have to sell” in both senses.
It’s not a matter of credentials, it’s a matter of intent. People whose highest loyalty is to truth are essential, and somehow in the insanity of the last thirty years have been marginalized.
I expect many, perhaps even most people not to understand what this is about. For those who fully subscribe to the the postmodern axioms, there is no truth, just opinions. Hence humanity will forever labor under superstitions and lies. Those superstitions and lies have direct consequences. In medicine, they kill people, often swiftly. In the industry, they kill people, often with a delay. By postmodernist axioms, they are just harmless opinions. In reality, they are actions that have very real effects.