jessicafischerqueen: <Wood>
There are no cross-purposes here between us, as far as I can see...
But a few points should be kept disambiguated--
First, the <ethics> of science, and the <often arrogant and disastrously imprudent attitude> of some scientists-- both in the past and today-- has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of science proper. By "science proper" I mean the <idea> of the "scientific method" and its actual prosecution-- that is, the pursuit of actual knowledge- facts-- using this method.
Simply put, the "scientific method" is the ONLY method of inquiry that has anything even remotely resembling an adequate epistemology:
1. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
2. The standards for proof have to derive from empirical method/observation.
It's simple-- also, always and forever, the products of this method- facts- can never constitute a finished and fully understood vision or even model of <reality>-- meaning "things as they really are," or "all that is the case," as Wittgenstein eloquently, and succinctly, put it.
As new facts arise, the source of new questions is infinite. Good Science, or even simply "Sane Science," never pretends to know "everything" or even that one day "everything will be known." This is the pitfall of <scientific positivism>, and a source of much of the arrogant attitude you are quite right to critique.
Religious doctrine/dogma, however, makes this PREPOSTEROUS claim all the time-- and in the total absence of any kind of empircal evidence whatsoever.
No archaeological dig can "prove" the reality of a metaphysical understanding of the "Garden of Eden," as a religious reading of <Genesis> DEMANDS.
That said-- agreed on one of your points:
The study of <Religious texts> and their truth claims, conducted strictly under the aegis of <bona fide> science is of course incredibly valuable. This kind of study has provided a wealth of actual reliable evidence about many facets of human history, especially pre-history.
This is in fact done all the time-- the archaelogical/hermeneutical work on the origins of the writing of the <Old Testament>, for example, already has revealed a rich array of reliable data.
Of course religious myths have some kind of basis in reality--
The writings themselves are "real writings", just to state the obvious...
And of course they reveal all kinds of things.
But the main point must be remembered:
There exists no empirical proof whatsoever for the vast majority of "information" that has been "recorded" in ancient religious/mythopoeic written/oral sources.
My only point is that the scientific method is the only <reliable means> by which to conduct any epistemelogically responsible kind of fact-finding mission.
Having an arrogant attitude is common in scientific circles- composed of fallible humans--
But that's got nothing at all to do with the actual goal of an empirical scientific method.
Bad scientists are bad scientists. Bad science is bad science.
But the scientific method is time-tested as the only reliable method to discern what we call "facts".
You know that many scientists are religious people.
But if they are true scientists-- they would bend over backwards not to let their religious beliefs and hopes interfere with the <method of science> as they practice in it their careers.
As <Howard> put it recently,
"Empirical facts trump theories".
CASE CLOSED.
Kibitzing
