Seen syncronicitously at Structure+Strangeness: Models, errors and the culture of science.:

In other words, critical discourse is a form of logical jousting, in which you can only disparage the assumptions of your opponent (thus undercutting their entire theory) while championing your own. Marshaling anecdotal evidence in support of your assumptions is to pseudo-science, I think, what stereotyping is to racism. So, since critical discourse is the normal practice outside of science, is it any wonder that when non-scientists attack science, they use the only form of criticism they understand? This observation, of course, leads me to be extremely depressed about the current state of science education in this country, and about the possibility of politicians ever learning from their mistakes.