| I would not object to the idea that honesty should be the core motive for science.
Everyone who ever watched the early versions of Star Trek knows about the contrast between the alien who thinks logically using data and evidence and his human counterpart played out by Captain Emotional.
However is the honesty of science ever perverted if the purpose of it has the partisan objective to prove that religions are false? Would that re-direct science away from finding truisms in nature via concentrating on the faults of religion? Should not the outer layer of the onion be made of the same stuff as is the core of the onion?
If science is to be honest to the core, how could it just overlook the felt experience as being as much of a reality as would be the physical body or other visable evidence? Surely science must agree that emotions such as fear and anger would play a role in animal evolution relative to the needs for survival? The reactions to stress via those emtional communicaitons. I doubt if animals could have evolved by doing test tube studies in their white mouse labortory, it had to include the systems of the felt experience.
A debate is in effect a kind of evolutionary system where one idea attempts to rise above another idea as the one most fit to survive the tests of time - aka peer opinions. If a emotional perpective should win out over a logical perspective then by the law of evoution it gets to lead the wolf pack. |