Science is objective, hmmm?
15 November 2006
The first article in this discussion (article discusses use of fetus visuals in a TV program about birth) is perhaps most interesting to the audience, but the whole thread is suggestive of a big debate about how we assign a lot of accuracy to media simply because they are easy to interpret.
I contend, however, that biology does not “to a greater extent than most sciences depend on things you cannot see first hand.” Astronomy has its suite of immense instruments and non-unanimous software, chemistry has any number of obscure -meters, and geophysics has more remote sensing than you can shake a color-IR, vegetation-enhanced stick at. These disciplines all possess (mostly) stable means of using these tools in analysis.