While I am in no way a proponent of theories like Creationism or Intelligent Design, I can see why articles like the one that Mr. Enbers cites give evidence to the view that Science can be just as dogmatic as religion. Extrapolating from flimsy evidence, charlatans like Mr. Freedman go on to produce "scientific" conclusions about things like political preferences. No wonder why so many people distrust them.

At its heart, science has a skeptical outlook towards the world, requiring a steep burden of proof before reaching conclusions, but too many researchers with a vested interest in exaggerating the importance of their work reject the uncertainty attached to any scientific explanation (namely that even the most established theories can change overnight with the discovery of new evidence) in favor of science as gospel, with conclusions written in stone. Just as evangelists can stop any debate by citing God's will as the reason for whatever it is they favor, so too can scientists stifle debate by conjuring up studies and statistics that are no less biased than the Bible or the Koran. Those who reject these questionable theories are treated not so much as infidels as imbeciles unable to grasp the self-evident truth. When crackpot theories are merely used to advance some silly idea, like which brain cells are Republicans and which are Democrats, these studies are harmless enough, but sometimes they can give the veneer of scientific legitimacy to deeply held prejudices, and then people can wind up getting hurt.

The dictionary defines science as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." Because neuroscience includes the word science in it does not automatically mean that gerneral laws of neuroscience have already been established. I challenge any informed reader to mention one well established law of neuroscience. Side note; despite its names, "Hebb's law" has already been largely displaced by advances in understanding of chemical communication between neurons (i.e., neurotransmitters). This state of affairs would actually be healthy (forcing laws down scientists throats that they don't want to swallow doesn't seem to make them happy) and probably normal; unfortunitely, the current context for research in general is extremely toxic. And without a strong formal set of laws or an authoritative leader neuroscience is in the worst possible position. The two biggest problems are that 1) federal funding request for basic science have dropped significantly in recent years forcing researchers to either sex up their findings (including reporting off the wall applied interpretations like the ones in this article) or find new careers 2) industrial funding for research, which has largely replaced federal funding, forces researchers to consider reporting only results that are favorable and getting asked to work with an industry sponsor again ("Yes, the drug your company makes helps significantly and thanks for all the free lunches you gave to our employess") or losing their funding and getting black balled. Until significant infrastructure changes are made to the body of science it is on course to be on par with religion as being a greater threat to humanity then it can possibly benefit. Expect things to get much much worse and don't forget the Maoist doctrine: Things are always darkest right before the go completely black.

"Federal funding of basic science dropped in recent years..."

Hummm.... Federal funding of religion has been zero for over 200 years, yet churches and even church-associated schools and colleges have continued to exist.

Science has no more claim to "truth" than History, Religion or (shudder) Politics!

Good science, like good history, religion and politics, tests claims and attempts to seek the truth. Bad science, like bad history, religion and politics attempts to profit from unfounded claims, rumor and inuendo.

Unfortunately, we have too much BAD science, history, religion and politics being practiced in this country.

If you want more federal funding of GOOD science, then I'd ask how we can trust politicians to decide what is GOOD given we have yet to come up with a difinitive way to test for GOOD polticians.

Suggestion: let the government fund only what is necessary; let the people keep the money the government would have spent on what politicians think is GOOD. I trust the broad spectrum of free citizens to donate and/or invest those funds better than politicians.

Absolutely science can appear as a religion. It was, after all, branched from religious studies through the middle ages to what we now see as a much more pragmatic arena. Yet, as you correctly note, individual scientists do present their perspectives in their best statistical formats and most profound conclusions. They can remain staunchly stalwart to their work despite evidence to the contrary. That is understandable and it is even acceptable. As long as the work itself was not technically flawed or worse intentionally manipulated it merits that level of loyalty by those within it's discipline. For others to conduct further research to challenge or disprove that work is the drive that keeps science progressing. If that new work does provide different conclusions then scholarly minds will need to digest which is indeed the more accurate. They can and they do many times agree to disagree rendering two sides of the aisle and a question needing still further work for a definitive answer. Science is an art and often times does not give clearly distinct results. So beliefs based on scientific approaches become established with almost a religious fervor. But unlike religions these people do keep their minds open to change. They will change their minds if they can be shown they are wrong. Religions have no anchor in proofs. They are anchored in faith based beliefs that by definition cannot be challenged. So science may appear to be like a religion sometimes but it is not the same animal at all.

While neuroscience is not the only scientific discipline to espouse conclusions greater than the facts allow, the fact that it deals with the brain makes it doubly important that neuroscientists tread gingerly. The study of human behavior is a minefield where what we don't understand vastly outstrips the little that we do, and scientists are always risking the danger of pronouncing some nebulous trait as being somehow more "natural" or "desirable" than some other equally nebulous trait, with profound implications that can affect everything from public policy to personal interaction. In the XX Factor yesterday, the bloggers were debating the claims of an even more dubious behavioral model---evolutionary psychology---as purporting to "explain" all sorts of actions in ways that just happen to reinforce the status quo. What neuroscience can do to combat such biased reading of the evidence is to stick to asking simple questions that can be empirically tested, like how neurotransmitters actually work, and refrain from using these results to explain such sweeping generalizations as a person's political preference. Unfortunately, such nuts and bolts research is pretty boring to the average layman, and doesn't get one a cover story New York TImes.

I have always been struck by how so many scientific breakthroughs have been made but people at the margins of the scientific community---people like Darwin, Mendel and Einstein---working without grants or tenure, and thus free of pressures to conform to existing theories.Governments spend billions of dollars on things like supercolliders looking to put the cherry on top of long established theories, while scientists like Watson and Crick made the discovery of the century by crafting a model from paper and wire. Scientific progress does not necessarily require major funding to continue.

That being said, the fact that we are having this discussion on the Internet is Exhibit A on how government funding can be used to facilitate progress.

Part of the problem is that not all of the sciences have such empirical proofs, and yet they demand that we treat them with the reverence we accord Newton's Laws. Behavioral science, social science, and economics all offer explanations of complex phenomena that can't be tested the way you can measure the volume of a gas. Freud may have been on to something with the Oedipus Complex, but how do you prove it? Even when the facts are known, there are plenty of cases where the interpretations are in dispute. The evidence says that the planet is getting warmer, yes, but what that means for the Earth in 100 years is anyone's guess. People lose sight of the fact that science is about questions more than answers.

In other words, the article sucked.

I challenge any informed reader to mention one well established law of neuroscience.

Weber's Law

There are also various findings that might not be called "laws" in your books, but are well-established. I would say that discovering the general characteritics of neural functioning counts as science:

--The existence, characteristics and function of the action potential

--The existance and function of synapses

--The pineal gland is not the seed of the soul

--The functional unit of the brain is the neuron

--The ventricles are not the source of brain activity

--The brain works neither as a completely separated group of "musles" (phrenology) or as a holistic organ (aggregate field theory)

--The localization of various functions (somatosensory and motor corices, hippocampus and medial temporal lobe function in memory, etc . . . )