Hi Bob, Good to see you posting again. And thanks for stating some points of mine better than I did. :-)
> But the difficulty is that the USSR made decisions on science based on > poltiical beliefs. Genetics did not fit with the communist philosophy and it was > rejected. I fully agree. >The issue is not whether a society is religous or not it is whether a > society and it members believe that they have the "truth". My point was that this does not have to be a function of religion, since the first anti-religeous state also exibited this behavior. So, the above statement was the conclusion I wished to be drawn from my examples. >So one must decide what feature of a society one wishes to consider the indepent variable. Agreed. Indeed, in your post, you have briefly outlined the thread of my reasoning.... much better than I did myself. :-) In my reply to Erik's post I also listed far less broad assumptions about knowing "the truth" that are also examples of this behavior: (e.g. supply side ecconomics, the "lost cause" historians of the Civil War, those 70+ losing money on Social Security.) From arguements with folks that hold these views, I've gotten the same sense of belief held against all comers that I have had with avowed Marxists or Fundamentalists. I even use to get that same sense of belief from the management of my former company. :-) So, this tendency to hold onto "known truths" no matter how they are called into question by evidence is seen in many forms, not just religious or political. There are many times when the first criterion for accepting evidence is whether or not it supports what one "already knows." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
