----- Original Message -----
From: Dewey Dykstra, Jr. <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Science and guilt -


> > Since scientists provide this rock-bottom
> >foundation for our lives, their *stewardship* is even
> >greater than a judge's, for all a judge can do is
> >decide based on the evidence, but the judge cannot
> >verify what the evidence is -- only scientists can do that.
> >
> >Now! If we live in a world where we
> >have very little idea "what's going on",
> >but must depend on *scientists* to tell us, how does this differ
> >from the role in past of The Roman Catholic Church?
>
> I agree with Brad McCormick's assessment of the situation and it's
> implications.  I would argue that this "state of affairs" is socially
> constructed in schools as a consequence of the way we teach; the way we
> teach science, in particular.
>
> Dewey

Yes, science gives us a monotheistic world in which we either agree to agree
or decide to disagree.  There is no objectivity possible when the thesis has
not be countered by the antithesis.  But perhaps the most scholarly of
pursuits is in melding the thesis with the antithesis to produce a
synthesis.  This melding into a synthesis thereby produces the thesis and
the game starts all over again.

Gerry