> On the other hand my old teacher Thomas Kuhn always emphasized that
> scientific research was based in a large part on
> dogmatic faith that the main suppositions that the
> scientist is using are mainly right. As a biologist
> you simply don't question evolution, as physicist,
> relativity -- people who do are cranks. Unless and
> until they are revolutionary geniuses.
That's the difference between science and religion, IMHO: the scientist has "faith" in her suppositions, until a better theory comes along and is substantiated rationally/empirically (often, but not always, by a revolutionary genius, such as Einstein or Darwin). Religions hang on to their creeds whatever evidence there may or may not be for them, as long as those creeds are emotionally satisfying. When a religious faith "dies," another one may take its place, but there is no systematic replacement process comparable to that of one scientific theory replacing another -- it's a purely emotional leap from one unsatisfying faith to a more satisfying one. (For example, from Saul to Paul, or from a religion like Christianity or Judaism to Marxism :-) ).
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)