I read an op-ed piece in the New York Times and it annoyed the heck out of me.
Taking Science on Faith, Paul Davies, November 24, 2007
His argument is as old as it is false: science is just another type of religion--another type of faith.
Somewhere between rolling my eyes and yelling at the ceiling I found a letter.
To the Editor:
Re "Taking Science on Faith" (opinion, Nov. 24):
Mr. Davies is confusing religious faith and scientific uncertainty. For instance, few scientists would claim to know with certainty that the pull of gravity applies universally. Science simply has faith that it does—with much compelling data in support of the theory and no compelling data to the contrary. This "faith" is still based upon objective observation and analysis. Likewise, the notion that there are fundamental principles that consistently explain the natural world is also a "faith" of science--a faith that has proven to be well founded since well before Copernicus, providing accurate predictions and useful knowledge. To conflate this scientific faith with religious faith--which offers no such record of accuracy or usefulness--is naïve at best; dangerous at worst.
Seattle, Washington, Nov. 26, 2007
Of course the Times has all sorts of rules about submitting a letter, but they were pretty straight forward.
I'm realistic about my chances of getting into the paper. To quote Cornel West "I'm not optimistic, but I'm hopeful".
So now I have a new mini-mission: get a letter-to-the-editor published in a major...uh...publication.
Assuming I'm an above-average writer, I think it's probably just a numbers game. Write a bunch of good letters and one is bound to get published.
Wish me luck...