How about scientific dogma? For example the idea of race. How come we
classify all the other mammalian groups so differently from the way we
classify humans, is that not a result of anthrocentric dogma. How about all
of the dogma that I here on this list that science is based on observation
and objective interpretation of data and religion isn't. Religion is based
on thousands of years of observation of data, but unlike science it isn't
foolish enough to claim objectivity.
> 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.
John Crooks