and letters. If there had been more insightful articles such as this, I'd still be a paying member of Salon. The idea of liberals considering their cause to be "charity" kind of sickens me. A just society is good for everyone, even the rich and even corporations. Corporations can't survive without well-off constomers and an educated work force. Even so, they continually work to accumulate wealth and privilege at the expense of the rest of us and against their own self-interest.

I get sick thinking that so-called alternative medical treatments might get covered by a national health care policy. I hope that all of you who ridicule evolution deniers and climate-change deniers will maintain your pro-science stance when it comes to medicine. Just because it's YOUR body doesn't mean it's exempt from the scientific method.

Did anyone notice that Shatner almost cracked up several times? Great stuff! I can't believe anyone expects us to take Ms. Palin seriously. As a source of comedy, however, she's unmatched.

We're always going to have an abundance of earthly problems to deal with -- manned space exploration shouldn't be off the table simply because we haven't achieved utopia on earth. Our various endeavors don't make up a zero-sum game. The space program was an engine for innovation that drove the U.S. economy for decades. The push for energy independence could fill that role for the future as could a push to colonize Mars. Both should be pursued.

1. Every profession, not just science, is portrayed in popular culture with gross stereotypes. When TV wants to give us an average guy that we can relate to, they give us someone who works in advertising. What the f?? It isn't that many/most scientists haven't led fascinating, dramatic lives, it's that any departure from the standard caricature is verboten.

2. Because most of us don't have enough knowledge to evaluate scientific theories such as "global warming is caused by humans", it comes down to who do we trust. I don't think we're really talking about scientific literacy here, since no matter how scientifically literate we are, most of us aren't knowlegable enough to say yea or nea on scientific issues. Even if we are shown the modeling parameters that go into the studies, we can't evaluate whether the researchers have left out important parameters or not. It really comes down to whether we trust the scientific establishment. Many scientists I've known, I honestly don't trust. They're too willing to bias or fudge their data to get results that will help them get the next grant, etc. The scientific method is great, but it needs to be applied. Over time it usually is, but only over time.

3. Scientist need to get better at explaining things. I think it was Einstein who said that if you couldn't explain something to your grandmother you didn't really understand it. Indeed, I read a book by Einstein on special relatively when I was in grade school and understood it perfectly.

4. Yes, the left is at least equally guilty as the right when it comes to being anti-science. The new-agers may not dispute global warming or evolution, but belief in varous kinds of healing (chiropracty, homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture), feng shui, being unequivocally against nuclear power, genetically modified foods, irradiated foods, etc. is hugely costly to society.

And you still haven't written the great American novel, nor have you managed to persuade everyone to your point of view with your amazing rhetoric. What's wrong with you? Because you've been such a failure, other writers are writing stuff too, and they're proceeding to persuade and to entertain, all because you're not the greatest writer ever. Sound familiar?

Yes, I do indeed know what it is like. I am a musician myself, and I went to school with a bunch of excellent musicians who were anything but affluent, most of whom had menial or clerical day jobs. Get off your high horse -- you obviously know nothing about the subject.

Most of the classical musicians in this country (less so in Europe) come from modest backgrounds. They find the time to learn their craft because they feel compelled to do so, not because the have loads of free time and rich parents to pay for lessons. Assuming that classical musicians come from money is just as logical as assuming that professional basketball players come from money. How else could they find the time to perfect their jump shot?

Classical audiences, on the other hand, are more and more coming from the ranks of the wealthy. There is a growing economic gap between the artist and the audience, and that is unfortunate.

For those of you who can't simply appreciate the gift of a young artist but have to respond with hate and snark: you're pathetic.

Few argue that climate change is not real, but the burning question is whether it is caused by humans. The interview spent a lot of time on the former, but not much on the latter.

I do think that scientists are often prone to construct models that show that problems are under their control. Physicians for e.g., tend see diseases/conditions as being caused by the sufferers themselves, witness how only recently we were told that ulcers were caused by too much stress, whereas now we know that they are the result of a bacterial infection. Perhaps giving up the idea of control leaves too much out of the realm of scientists' real magic.

I'm not qualified to judge the science that "proves" human controlled climate change, but I do know that scientists tend to have certain personality traits, and that these traits tend to affect their conclusions. And, the normal process of proving a hypothesis false by experimental means is very difficult in this case.

Thank-you. My sentiments, exactly.

Let's just pull them off and put them in a cup of gasoline to kill them.