Untitled:

Why do segments of society seem to take great delight and gusto at blaming science for things?

There are certain flaws in positivism.

However, you never really see that many examples of a "science hero" these days anymore as an archetype in stories. You do still see the science villain. unless it's a period piece set in the past of a bygone era where both the hero and the villain employ feats of logic and gadgetry you don't see science being used by the good guys as much.

When you do have a good doctor or scientist character in the supporting cast they usually die because of their research or trying to figure out some forbidden thing to help advance the plot which gives the actual hero who is a regular action hero or so a tool to defeat the evil badguy or horrible device/scheme or monster he or she has made.

For all the faulting of empiricism for disrespecting magical beliefs or not supposedly accepting the allegedly equally equal subjective feelings based perceptions of each and every person if they temper tantrum enough you have to also understand that alternatives don't really seek out to understand through finding out and examing things the way experimenting through the scientific method does. Always question everything. Part of the beauty in the scientific way of doing things is that unlike the dogma of religion and politics you start out assuming you do not already know everything and seek things out to understand more. Do politics manage to creep into the scientific community? Yes because scientists are people too but when it comes to organized methods to try and understand physical phenomena, I still think science is pretty much our best piece of equipment in the toolbox. Without it we would still be attempting to attribute susceptibility to diseases or birth defects to individual moral foibles or flaws in character. Unfortunately some people still try to. That's not a value neutral way to look at things. Yes, there are some flaws in trying to be 100% objective but throwing it out the window to embrace a standardless subjectivism seems nonsensical to me. I do think there is some merit in use of bias minimization techniques. Is it 100% perfect? No. Yet, one WOULD figure that it's better than not trying at all.

Yes I just dissed postmodernism, anarchoprimitivism and extreme feminism somewhat. All in one blow.

I'd like to see at least one movie set in modern or future times where a belief system was part of the villain's arsenal or regular society was the badguy and learning or a scientist were the good guys. I don't think in our anti-intellectual society and the current political atmosphere this would ever gain mainstream traction anytime soon though.

Risk misManagement:

You realize of course that nothing in statistical reality is ever 100% safe at all times to all people around or using it, yes? A person could theoretically choke to death on a textureless boiled soggy piece of broccoli if they were breathing heavily in the midst of arguing and eating at the same time. That doesn't mean everybody should skip eating boiled vegetables in order to be safe though. Likewise, there's a statistically infinitesmally small chance of the occurrence of a rare but lethal microbe landing on you that got carried over from someplace else and blown onto you by the wind while you are just minding your own business outside in a regular place under regular circumstances but that doesn't mean we should all never again go outside and only do so in protective clothing with masks and rebreathers or sealed air tanks!

It is then much to my worry that people walk around demanding absolutely NO RISK in ANYTHING EVER. That things be proven 100% SAFE. That NO RISKS OR EVEN POSSIBLE POTENTIAL RISKS ARE EVER ACCEPTABLE.

The most well engineered vehicle or tool ever designed and built might only have 85-92% safety to it. There is a rough, small CHANCE OF MECHANICAL FAILURE, NATURAL DISASTER, SABOTAGE OR "ACTS OF GOD" no matter how well planned or made something is. That's how real life in the world works and the laws of the universe and of motion that seem to govern everything outside a committee room or concerned citizens group town hall meetings seemingly function. You have disaster and safety procedures to deal with containment or cleaning up of accidents when they occur but you do not try to sell people on that they should expect nothing bad to ever happen. Not unless you want perpetually unskilled helpless losers who are always hurting themselves on things all the time and panicking about garbage happening...

Rather than tell people to expect things to be good or always be horrible, is it not more sensible to give them disaster plans, accident procedures and safety protocols for things that are dangerous or when things do go wrong?

Life, liberty and pursuit of offshore tax-sheltering:

We are to live in a government for the people, of the corporations and by the corporations.

This year a whole string of rather ugly "Internet blacklist bills" keep being motioned in Congress. <- Allegedly, to combat online piracy and as part of this whole "getting tough on crime" shtick politicians still can never seem to quite get enough of. Now, far be it for me to actually directly state something in support of bootlegging (because hey if you're a content creator and somebody pirates your ideas or intellectual property then yes, they will be on your people to sue the crap out of shitlist) but as long as the part of the First Amendment's freedom of speech and part about loosely interpreted freedom of expression that cover political cartoons both remain intact... well, I can still make some to take the piss out of bad legislation I dislike.