http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=983839

Editor:

I am writing in reply to Dr. David Suzuki's article "Science the best source we have" (March 28). I am sorry for not replying sooner but I found the latter half of his article so vulgar that I have been hard pressed to deliver any sort of charitable reply.

So in the spirit of charity I do agree with Dr. Suzuki that the environment and information glut are two major issues confronting us today.

That being said, I cannot believe that Dr. Suzuki, who has been a voice of moderation against our reckless pursuit of scientific and technological "progress," would promote both logical positivism and its kissing cousin scientism. As any philosophy student in his or her freshman year knows, the study of nature (i.e. science) can tell us nothing about morality. So yes, Dr. Suzuki, scientific knowledge can tell us how many degrees Celsius the oceans are warming or cooling.

It can also tell us about the degree that polar icecaps are shrinking or just how far fish stocks are depleted. However, I have yet to see a dolphin swim by holding a sign reading, "Save Me From The Tuna Can!" I have also never seen the Northern lights spell out a good environmental policy. I have most certainly never heard a baby seal chant, "Listen to David Suzuki!"

More over, Dr. Suzuki's charming quip that he would bet on "scientific consensus over an observer's hunch, a politician's opinion, or a business leader's tip" is alarming. Of course, any sort of learned consensus is preferable to hunches, opinions or tips. But what about scientific consensus as opposed to political or economic consensus? Indeed, what type of message is Dr. Suzuki sending by this distinction and his recent call for university students to find (read: invent) ways to imprison our politicians (who have come to power through free and democratic elections)? Apparently if the decrees of our all-knowing scientific clergy will not be heeded, then they must be imposed on us for our own good. I find this extremely disturbing when I consider Dr. Suzuki's own sad past of being imprisoned for the "good" of society.

His final jibe that we should prefer the best scientific minds and information to guide our policies rather than the Bible, the Koran or the Dow Jones average is entirely hypocritical and narrow minded. First, Dr. Suzuki has made it clear in his writings that spirituality is an essential part of human life, though I guess he really means that his own personal conception of the spiritual is an essential part of our lives. Finally, I am sure that Dr. Suzuki, having worked as a scientist for several decades, is entirely aware of how business grants and investments undergird (if not drive) scientific research. In closing, while I do sympathize with Dr. Suzuki on many issues, I can't tolerate his implied totalitarianism. Richard Boychuk

Owen Sound