Ken,

"Perhaps the error was in originally expecting science to be a "pure" endeavor. It is a human endeavor, no doubt, and is subject to human foibles. It tries to reign in those foibles, moreso than to eliminate them, so the key is for us to actually follow the principles of science and not fall into human nature. Feynman defined science along the lines of instructions for not fooling ourselves, given that we are each the easiest person for us to fool. As always, he was right on the money, it's just especially poignant when we fool ourselves with science, or with an inaccurate application of those careful instructions."

We all have these human biases and thats why we need to constantly ask ourselves if we are being objective. I know I'm always checking myself for bias and very often find it :-) I'm clearly biased towards a non-determinstic universe and I'm sure much of that is an emotional need. However I think I've also thought it all through, and even regardless of my own bias i dont think i am kidding myself. However we all live in our own reality to some extent so i could be a complete self-delusional loonie :-)

"Yes, the claims of determinism were always based on a kind of religious idea that the universe could do things that we could not. It was as though the universe had access to a "perfect" computer to solve its equations, whereas we have only better and better computers. Of course there's nothing scientific behind that perspective, it was always just a form of lazy thinking that we could usually get away with. And at some level there's nothing wrong with getting away with things-- that's basically the goal of science, to bring reality into a realm of understanding that clever apes could get away with. The error is when we forget that this is what it is, and we, like Icarus, get too amazed by our own achievements, astounding though they may be."

Perhaps this is a human malaise which comes from being the most advanced biology on the planet, by what appears to be quite some margin.

I've always thought the Determinist piliosophy of science was more like a self-imposed raison d'etre for scientists. In a way they and the scientific profession remain more valuable to society the more precise their predictions. Its a bit like an alchemist exaggerating to the king in order to get more funding for his experiments.

As you said, our science is fundamentally human-centric.