The seem to be arbitrary limits on where science can be applied. One, we’ve already seen, is the boderline between science and religion. But others seem more to be decided on how emotional people get about a topic. (Actually, this may account for the religious divide too.)

One example of this is the way anyone daring to look into ‘fringe’ issues tends to be ridiculed. A scientist can come up with the wackiest theory imaginable about how the universe works, and that’s fine, but as soon as it’s a possible mechanism for one of these no go areas there is outrage.

I was inspired to comment on this by the way that emotion (and politics) seems to be taking over from science in climate change. See the Science Writers’ forum for more on the dubious concept of the climate change denier.