Dogma did not produce computers. It does not calculate the trajectory of falling satellites or give light to your living quarters. We do not throw random pieces of metal and glass into a box and call it a television. You would not disregard the laws of gravity in an attempted moon landing. You would not ignore thermal dynamics when piloting a hot air balloon. Why then? Why do people attempt to construct an idea arbitrarily, or uphold ideas that fit this criteria? Why is science only good enough sometimes?
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
Anything you say I can reply "because god created it that way" and you cannot disprove me. I think that annoys you. -giggle-
Fear of recognizing we're not much of anything other than biological trash when our demise is upon us. We wish to remain ourselves forever,if I understand what you're saying.
Science is always "good enough" for the purposes for which it is intended: to gain reliable empirical data through rigorous testing of falsifiable hypotheses. It tends to be best at avoiding type 1 errors (credulity) but at the risk of type 2 errors ( excessive skepticism). Its tendency toward reductionism can sometimes lead to misleading conclusions, and it isn't much good with questions of ultimate meaning.
If it was, wouldn't we understand it already? I'm all for improvement. Interdisciplinary movement between its many branches should be encouraged.
