<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Justin wrote:</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> Apparently we have a disconnect, Miles. i don't think science is a very useful rhetorical tool, </DIV> <DIV>> at least if science is narrowly conceived as biology results. Most people haven't a clue about </DIV> <DIV>> what biologiy results mean, given the dismal state of science education, appeal to science is </DIV> <DIV>> for rhetorical purposes just appeal to Authority!</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>I have an anecdote: last year, a doctor gave a lecture in one of my classes.  He argued that HIV isn't the cause of AIDs.  Even though I know next to nothing about science, and presumably the doctor knows plenty, I knew he was wrong.  How?  Authority.  (From what you wrote below, it appears that you may allow for such indirectly justified empirical knowledge.) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>> What science is necessary for is not rhetoric, but knowledge. There is no other way of </DIV> <DIV>> attaining reliable empirical knowledge. None. Zip. Zero. If people "learn" something by </DIV> <DIV>> "tradition" for which there is no controlled empirical support, no possiibility of indeoendent </DIV> <DIV>> test, or other marks of science, they don't know it. They just believe it. If this sounds Western > Imperialist, ethnocentric. and contemptuous of alternative ways of knowing, you betcha </DIV> <DIV>> booty. Galileo et al stumbled on the right way to find things out. </DIV></BODY></HTML>