[peter12]

Am I correct in understanding that you are challenging the value that we as a society has attached to expert opinions? Do you feel that a better approach would be to treat all opinions on any given subject or idea as entirely equal, regardless of ones expertise?

There is nothing wrong with expert opinions as long as they are given the proper time and place to be responded to. We don't really do that anymore in a meaningful way, so it leaves the door open to fringe conspiracy thinking which then goes on to further pollute the public sphere. At least that's my opinion. I certainly do not believe that all opinions are relative, nor do I believe that truth is held by whomever calls themselves an expert. Often experts, especially scientists, hold what they think to be a particular type of truth without acknowledging the moral or political framework.

Richard Dawkins is a perfect example. He thinks that evolutionary biology justifies a host of beliefs without recognizing the overall historical context. Namely, that he is a pretty standard, wish-washy, secular liberal. You can read Francis Bacon and create a parody of Richard Dawkins, 400 years before he existed. Does that make sense? We use so-called rationalism and materialism to defend particular points and given the current cultural milieu this makes them all but impregnable to true philosophical skepticism which is the true spring of eternal cultural health.

I expect that the latter would meet would the most positive approval, but I really question how much the first statement holds true. Obviously, because there is even an ongoing debate about the ethical or moral consequences in stem-cell research demonstrates fairly clearly that the polity is NOT willing to leave the matter up to the "scientific elite".

Well, I would challenge the very existence of a polity in these times so I am not sure that the resistance of people amounts to anything significant.