Do you believe in ghosts?

Why so credulous? Shermer points out that while science is progressive, culture is not. As a result science has changed faster than our culture has been able to adapt to it--with dangerous results:

The social sciences have had considerably less success than their counterparts in the physical and biological sciences, leaving us at the close of the 20th century with a plethora of life-threatening problems and social scientists groping for answers in what many observers see as a desperate race against time. (e.g., Rifkin, 1987; Holton, 1986; Brown, 1986; Capra, 1982; Bronowski, 1973). War, revolution, slavery, poverty, pollution, unemployment, monetary inflation, economic depression, crime, racism, sexism, religious persecution, social conflict, and failing education confront us on every side with no solution in sight. The problem confronting the entire social sphere may be reduced to a single cause: We have an 18th-century social, political, and economic system that must accommodate a 20th-century physical and biological science and technology. In short, we have the technical means for self-annihilation without the social means for preventing it.

Shermer defines science, which is important. So many believe that science is simply an alternative to religion--both require "belief" and a certain suspencion of disbelief. Some argue that "believing" that we humans, in our complexity and wondor, evolved from a single-cell takes a kind of faith in and of itself. And both, it is felt by many, try to explain the world and impregnate life with meaning--and many feel that religion does a better job on this score. Also, many feel science is arrogant in its claim to be able to explain the world with absolute certainty. But these are straw men. Science is not a set of beliefs, it is not about meaning, and it does not claim to know everything. It is:

...a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.

Far from faith, science is the opposite: the search for truth through skepticism.

The idea of science being "progressive" aslo rankles many people, and for different reasons. But it is important to understand the way in which science is "progressive":

I also assume that science is progressive because science has certain built-in self-correcting features: experimentation, corroboration, and falsification. These characteristics make scientific paradigms different from all other paradigms, which include pseudoscience, non-science, superstition, myth, religion, and art. The reason that pseudoscience, non-science, superstition, myths, religion, and art are not progressive is that they do not have the goal or the mechanism to allow the accumulation of knowledge that builds on the past. Progress, in this cumulative sense, is not their purpose.

Other cultural traditions (art, myths, religion) may retain some of the features found in science and technology, such as being accepted or rejected within their own community or by the public, but none have as their primary goal cumulative growth through an indebtedness to the past. Thus, only science and technology are truly progressive.

Shermer makes great pains to explain that "progressive" in this sense does not mean "better" or "superior." And more science doesn't make us happier:

Progress in this sense is meant as a value-neutral description. Progress is neither good nor bad; it simply is. Many think progress is good, but there are plenty who think progress is destructive, and they, in turn, generally dislike science and technology—at least they are consistent. ... Among academics as well, the word “progress” has taken on a pejorative meaning, implying superiority over those who have not progressed as far. In my oral doctoral defense I was firmly advised by my committee to replace the modifier “progress” with “change” when referring to science.

I wonder whether the political correctness that rushes to confirm the idea that science isn't good or bad--it just is--is premature. Yes, I am aware of the great challenges science presents--especially when it outpaces a cultures ability to absord the implications of its powerful discoveries. But what is "good"? Surely there are some metrics that objectively define "good." Surely is it good to be fed and bad to be hungry. Surely is is good to be healthy and bad to be sick. Surely it is good to live a free, prosperous life than to live one that is "solitary, poor, nasty, bruttish, and short." Science has helped us make tremendous progress the state of humanity--surely that is good.

Shermer concludes:

One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

That is the fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience.