Posner, on the Becker-Posner blog, puts it pretty well in the discussion the related issue of stem-cell research.
"A number of the comments debate what seem to me purely metaphysical questions concerning when life begins, whether five-day embryos should be treated as full-fledged human beings, etc. By "metaphysical" I mean can't be resolved by reference to logic or evidence. They are matters of opinion and endless contestation, strongly influenced by religious views that cannot be verified or refuted (modern religions are careful to avoid proposing falsifiable hypotheses, such as that the world will end on September 1, 2006). I get no nourishment from such debates. I believe that upbringing, temperament, experience, emotion, and certain brute facts determine one's answers to such questions, not truth or falsity..."
My concern is that people, in their fear of social isolation or ostracism, don't want to be labelled fanatics or told that their deeply-held views, in the final analysis, are not much more than a matter of personal taste, so they try and put the cart before the horse. They decide what they want to believe from a moral dimension, and then turn back and selectively interpret existing science or blatantly fabricate and create the pseudoscience necessary to "justify" their views.
I would submit that it's better for the progress of human thinking and winning the public mind to contend with those who admit they dismiss scientific thought (who are largely discounted), than to contend with those who, through magical thinking, strange logic, and confusion of semantics, make an equal claim to the scientific throne and use that ill-gained perceived legitimacy to persuade and undermine the healthy self-skepticism of a rational person.
The nature of the "discussion"
"A number of the comments debate what seem to me purely metaphysical questions concerning when life begins, whether five-day embryos should be treated as full-fledged human beings, etc. By "metaphysical" I mean can't be resolved by reference to logic or evidence. They are matters of opinion and endless contestation, strongly influenced by religious views that cannot be verified or refuted (modern religions are careful to avoid proposing falsifiable hypotheses, such as that the world will end on September 1, 2006). I get no nourishment from such debates. I believe that upbringing, temperament, experience, emotion, and certain brute facts determine one's answers to such questions, not truth or falsity..."
My concern is that people, in their fear of social isolation or ostracism, don't want to be labelled fanatics or told that their deeply-held views, in the final analysis, are not much more than a matter of personal taste, so they try and put the cart before the horse. They decide what they want to believe from a moral dimension, and then turn back and selectively interpret existing science or blatantly fabricate and create the pseudoscience necessary to "justify" their views.
I would submit that it's better for the progress of human thinking and winning the public mind to contend with those who admit they dismiss scientific thought (who are largely discounted), than to contend with those who, through magical thinking, strange logic, and confusion of semantics, make an equal claim to the scientific throne and use that ill-gained perceived legitimacy to persuade and undermine the healthy self-skepticism of a rational person.