[net.religion] agreed!

lew (02/21/83)

Steve Hutchison stated:

Actually, what I was trying to say, flamelike, was that dogma is not
restricted to religion, and that any time a hierarchy forms, whether
one of learning, philosophy, government, whatever, you will find tht
(that) people, human beings, egotistical fallible human beings, will
establish dogmas.  They will fight for these dogmas, just as fiercely
as I am being fought for challenging the dogma (actually a wishful
self-image for most of us) that scientists are NOT all open-minded and
fair about everything.   I will further fan the flames by saying that
I think that the whole idea of the permanently open mind is a remarkably
short-sighted one.  The best one can and should strive for is a
periodically open mind, so that opinions, assumptions, and knowledge
can be checked for false assumptions or poor formation.

-----------------

I really do agree with this, except that I wasn't fiercely fighting Steve
(if I am the one he meant) for challenging the dogma of the open-minded
scientist ( I just noticed Steve got it backwards (I do that all the time))
I was arguing the peripheral implications of his statements about molecular
biology.

I think that whenever people have an emotional investment in a belief,
even concerning mundane matters, they defend it on that basis, rather
than merit alone. One sees this in the workplace constantly. When
beliefs are elevated to ideologies, the stakes are high indeed. I concur
that debate is still useful, even if one anticipates neither victory
nor defeat, in the form of a converted debater. One needs to examine
just how much ones investment is really worth.

		Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew