On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.
—  Noam Chomsky | BEYOND BELIEF:Science, Religion, Reason and Survival Salk Institute, La Jolla November 5-7, 2006
These findings and facts and theories, and good science has always admitted this, should really be seen as models. Here I differ (and I believe cautious and skeptical scientists should differ) with Pinker on the idea that the world is intelligible. Our understanding and knowledge of the world can be intelligible, but what that says about the world per se (or as Kant would put it, the world as “thing in itself”) we can only guess. Of course, the standard response to this among positivists and those who ascribe to a certain brand of scientism is that the world as we understand it is the world. And yet as scientific inquiry has shown us again and again, there could always be more than meets the eye, or lens, or instrument or mode of quantitative analysis.

Sebastian Normandin at Berfrois. Scientism and Skepticism: A Reply to Steven Pinker

Pinker’s The New Republic article: Science Is Not Your Enemy: An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians

What all this technical jargon reduces to is this: When US farm lobbyists push for “sound science” as the basis for food supply trade rules, what they mean by this term is that they want Europe to eliminate all restrictions on imports of food from the US, and to adopt a US-style food supply regulatory regime, stripped of the precautionary principle.

DW via Navdanya’s Diary. US says ‘science’ should settle trans-Atlantic food trade rules

The rules governing food imports are up for grabs in US-EU free trade negotiations. The US wants Europe to base its assessment of genetically-modified crops and hormone-treated meats on 'sound science’.