next to each other in a sentence: Objective, scientific. IMO there is nothing objective about scientific knowledge. Faith in scientific knowledge is based on faith in the scientific method, which again means faith that what we read that is claimed to have 'scientific proof' does indeed have a background that can be called scientific.
Centuries ago, knowledge was accepted as coming from 'authorities'. The authorities were the Bible and other canonical texts, and the 'ancients', by which was meant the Greek and Roman writings that survived. Anything that was not based on an interpretation of these authorities could not possibly be taken seriously.
Now, we have faith in science as the test of believability. So we have to weigh our sources as to how valid they are scientifically. A school textbook gets a certain weight because it is likely to have been scrutinized by many knowledgable people. An article in a scientific journal gets a certain weight because we believe the editors know what they are doing. If the article is old enough that the ideas could have been challenged, then it gets a higher weight, etc. In short, we are not doing anything different from pre-science days - we are just choosing our authorities differently.
In short, any principle that we have not personally tested using the scientific tests that went with describing the discovery of that principle is simply taken on faith. Faith that the system of science works.
Does this guarantee accuracy? No more than belief in the ancients ever did. It makes for better consistency, and provides a better check against misunderstandings, but there is no such thing as a guarantee of truth in science. And that's a good thing - it leaves the door open for new scientific discoveries refining and embellishing what we believe we know now.
So does tolerance for other beliefs than our own extend to encompass the belief of those who don't hold science as the highest test of truth? I have always thought so. Which means that beliefs that give rise to such intolerance as these laws show should be tolerated. But the intolerance that the laws show should not.
There is something of a paradox here in that beliefs that are intolerant should be tolerated while the intolerance itself should not. I feel that whatever your beliefs, tolerance and understanding of others' beliefs is paramount. But that's just me.
Thank you for your patience with this tirade *hops off the soapbox, picks it up, sticks it under an arm and walks off whistling) |
