Quote:
|
Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes…I understand and respect your belief system Tiny. I however cannot accept a scientific world view or paradigm that refuses to entertain all theories ideas and hypothesis. If science had not been shown by history its predisposition for gross inaccuracy I might be more predisposed to accept it on faith alone.
To be sure we need a sort of scientific methodology for discovery. That is obvious. However our addictive dependency on old theory and doctrine (Darwinism for example) and the reluctance to accept all other petitioners is tantamount to intellectual sacrilege.
MB |
I'm not so sure, maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but you observe science as being an addictive dependancy to old theory but science, if not so proven on an evidential level, certainly can pertain to the idea that it "follows the truth, wherever it may lead" (Socrates).
Personally, I feel that religion is more guilty of attaching itself to dogma - although I'm refraining from saying that this is a bad thing, it just re-iterates my point that as a tool of explanation religion has already established its conclusions and followers of the various faiths have faith enough to believe that their outlook on the meaning of life is already correct.
Science, on the other hand seems to be a differing mechanism - I don't see science as an established theory, but a constantly evolving process, following the truth down whatever avenue (No matter how controversial) and I admire science for this.
However, I guess that lines are drawn everyday - between science and religion - although the dichotamy between the two is only a theoretical one. Professors of Science and Religious Scholars are the quickest to admit that they are fields of theoretical enquiry, not factual analysis.
Good science, is like good religion - that which is merely the most convincing.