Think tanks are groupie attempts to make sense of a (sub)system of Reality based on their common and basic tenets. They, too, can fail to perceive any Reality writ large, and obviously fail to convince a majority of their grasp of even this (sub)system they propose.

The concept of neutrality must apply to the political arena in particular, so I find it hard to see how a neutral think tank could penetrate to the core of Reality. You see, many if not most scientists and "thinkers" black out transcendentalism entirely, thereby confining their reality to matter, space and time. It would seem that your reality is of this kind.

Whose reality, Michael?

There's only one, manning.

This means that nine-tenths of the people--the majority of the voting public--tend to be mislead by scientists.

Not just by scientists, but also by politicians, religious leaders, superiors as work, spouses, etc. But the actual science, the reality, doesn't lie.

Something like the Global Warming fiasco, or my favorite example of science gone mad, eugenics.

Parts of global warming are pure science, but most of the predictions of doom are not. Eugenics isn't science at all, it's policy.

It is one thing to be in possession of the right answers, and it is quite another to be able to put them in action

Action is easy, it's getting people to take the correct actions that is virtually impossible.

Politics trumps science!

Far too often.

Science only misleads people who don't understand science, or don't bother to verify what they are told is science.

This means that nine-tenths of the people--the majority of the voting public--tend to be mislead by scientists. Something like the Global Warming fiasco, or my favorite example of science gone mad, eugenics.

It is one thing to be in possession of the right answers, and it is quite another to be able to put them in action via the public or their elected representatives, or, especially, their political parties. So, for example, we still have no solution to the Social Security or Medicare financial problems.

Politics trumps science!

Micheal - proof is a lot harder to come by than you imagine. There's a reason we speak of theories in science (inlcuding relativity and evolution -- there, that ought get some people going!) and don't declare every discovery or repeatable experiment as a law of nature.

Yes, because theories and laws are completely different in nature, not varying degrees of the same thing. It is much easier to determine a law of nature than it is to create a theory to explain it.

Newtonian mechanics worked very well for a long time, and still does for repeatable experiments at velocities, energy levels and scales you are likely to ever run into, but it turns out it was wrong.

Newton wasn't wrong! Jesus, why does everybody who wants to dismiss science use this tired old line? Being inaccurate at the extremes means his equations were incomplete, not wrong. Guess what, Einstein's equations incorporate Newton's equations, it doesn't replace them. Einstein no more replaced Newton than our current United States replaced the original 13.

For a very long time, I guess Al Gore would have considered the debate over and shouted down that pesky Einstein when he showed up to challenge the accepted science of the day.

A lot of people did shout down Einstein, not because Relativity wasn't compatible with Newton, but because it wasn't compatible with Quantum Theory. But then a funny thing happened, they tested Einstein's theories, and they always came out right. Science, it works bitches.

Reality is always a reliable, neutral source. If you can prove that something logically must be, can prove that is historically has been, or provide a repeatable test to prove that is, then you don't need anything else.

Whose reality, Michael? Everything, every decision, cannot be reduced to mere science and logic, thus your reality is most probably not all that close to anyone else's.

No disrespect to Michael but science is no panacea. From blood letting to phrenology science has misled us in the past and has the ability to do it in the future.

Science only misleads people who don't understand science, or don't bother to verify what they are told is science. Neither of your examples followed the scientific method, and therefore neither of them were science.

do you have any similar qualms when linking to Yglesias, Drum, et alius, or are they not also ideologically driven?

No, since I'm not quoting them as authorities on anything but their own opinion. And I'll quite individual Heritage or Cato authors on the same basis. I haven't cited Jim Carafano much lately but I respect his work tremendously.

For that matter, I don't have any issue with linking to studies by any of these reputable think tanks as a means of launching a discussion or even citing their studies among others in making an argument. It's just that when I say, "according to the Heritage Foundation..." there's a large group of readers who automatically -- and generally unfairly -- dismiss what follows.

Newtonian mechanics worked very well for a long time, and still does for repeatable experiments at velocities, energy levels and scales you are likely to ever run into, but it turns out it was wrong. For a very long time, I guess Al Gore would have considered the debate over and shouted down that pesky Einstein when he showed up to challenge the accepted science of the day.

James, I understand your reluctance to link to studies by Heritage and Cato because they are, as Megan puts it, ideologically driven, but do you have any similar qualms when linking to Yglesias, Drum, et alius, or are they not also ideologically driven?

The more appropriate way is to let each side of the debate frame the argument in the way they see most fit and battle it out like a court of law with the public being the jury. Not a perfect way of getting the truth but the best we have.

No disrespect to Michael but science is no panacea. From blood letting to phrenology science has misled us in the past and has the ability to do it in the future.

Are there really neutral sources that make sense on a full range of topics (present site excepted)?

Reality is always a reliable, neutral source. If you can prove that something logically must be, can prove that is historically has been, or provide a repeatable test to prove that is, then you don't need anything else.

Science. It works.

Increasingly, we’re in a no-trust environment and even once exalted brands can’t carry the day on their own.

Citations are demanded by some ("links please!")because personal opinions are not accepted as valid. Thus, this no-trust environment forces links to sources that are in themselves no-trust, so one has to attempt to make the entire argument stand on its own, and then have it be derided as a mere personal opinion. Are there really neutral sources that make sense on a full range of topics (present site excepted)?