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