Farmer: Dogma just can't replace real science

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."

This oft-repeated expression is meant to reflect the subjective nature of art. The fact that we can have no formal training in art yet fall madly in love with, or go running and screaming from, a piece of artwork stems from the fact that beauty truly does lie in the eye of the beholder. There are no absolute standards in art, music or poetry, and one's appreciation of these purely is a personal experience.

The same clearly is not the case with science. Regrettably, an increasing number of Americans operate under the assumption that scientific truths succeed or fail based on their acceptance by the majority of scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is the most undemocratic, unforgiving and despotic of disciplines.

The success of a scientific theory doesn't rest with how cleverly it is presented, how well-spoken its spokesmen are, or even how enthusiastically it is embraced by its advocates. Scientific ideas succeed or fail on one criterion only: How well does the theory explain the facts and our observations of the universe?

For most of our history, Americans have accepted and understood this distinction between science and the arts. Most of us were confident with our well-placed trust in scientists. Forty years ago, we trusted our nation's pride and honor to a handful of scientists who brazenly told us they could fly to the moon. And fly they did!

Those days are gone. Over the past 30 years, and in particular within this new century, Americans have become increasingly suspicious of science. If this were the result of some great renaissance of science education in which the electorate now were much better prepared to evaluate critically the quality of scientific in