Posted by Bob on 7/27/2007, 5:40 am, in reply to "Re: Science and (or is it vs?) Religion" The mere fact of dissidence alone is not grounds for outright dismissal. The skeptic in this case need not already have proved his case. Without the resources of the laboratory, this might be impossible, creating a catch-22 situation. If a student can demonstrate mastery of the coursework, over a four year course of study, during which time his abilities have had ample time to be found wanting, then he has already established a case for his competence as a scientist. If that case is to be challenged, very well, let the challenge be made, and let it be based on his science, not on his religion, nor on his scientifically founded skepticism. But let the student who has already demonstrated a mastery of the coursework have at least some benefit of the doubt, before being summarily dismissed on the basis of bias. Otherwise, science enters a dark ages where, if the woman floats she is a witch, and must be burned, but if she drowns she was innocent. Catch-22. By some standards, even Einstein would not be admitted to post-graduate programs in physics, because he challenged, but could not prove his case against, pure randomness in quantum events.
72.243.26.154
He does, but the issue here is whether science will permit in the laboratory a dissident who challenges fundamental tenets of biology.
