Re:the religion of science (was:virus: Sexuality)

ken sartor (
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:54:19 -0500

At 03:20 PM 9/18/96 -0500, Patricia & John Crooks wrote:

>> I believe the difference the
>>poster (sorry lost track of whose post John was responding to) was trying
>>to point out is that the scientific method directs scientists to look for
>>the evidence that will refute their hyotheses.
>This is the purpose of much of contemplation and meditation.


>> Religious meme-complexes,
>>on the other hand, frequently insulate themselves from refutation by
>>anamolous data.
>Scientific meme-complexes frequently do this also, I say this a former
>long-term employee of the I.U. Medical Center. The fact that scientific
>meme-complexes do this does not mean that this is inherent in science
>anymore than it is in religion. I think it would be more accurate to say
>that people do this.
>What I am seeing here is that the scientific community seems to think it is
>the only group of people capable of evaluating information because they
>BELIEVE (and the depth with which they believe it is only more evidence that
>it is a belief) that their system of evaluation, the scientific method, is
>the only accurate and effective method of evaluation of data.
>I don't know about you, but to me that sounds pretty darn dogmatic.

Ok - let me see if i get your point. Is observational data evaluated
using the scientific method suspect? Is contemplation and meditation
the preferred system?

>From my point of view, the scietific method is the best way of
getting objective truth. When it fails, it corrects itself
(it may take a significant amount of time to do so, of course).
Do we agree that science, _given time_, can be used to describe
much of the things we observe in the universe (like gravity,
chemistry, life's beginnings, thinking...)?

Or, if we do not agree, what do you suggust we turn to to complete
the above task?