god of science

    i brought up a point in my archaeological theory class today that i wish to expand upon. Class discussion focused on who owns the rites to tell the story, and preserve the remains of native american cultures. Many people claim that science, in the name of greater understanding of all humans should be able to catalog and analyze artifacts, human remains, and other assorted features found in the archaeological record. 

     This is contested by many tribes and organizations. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) was a major act of federal legislation (passed in 1990) that limits what american (traditionally white) archaeologists have to do with cultural artifacts and human remains. It gives native groups a voice in deciding what gets done with the remnants of their ancestors and their culture. Some natives are not very hospitable to archaeologists and scientists for good reason. The founder of american anthropology Franz Boas,  a pillar of anthropological ideals who fought hard against scientific racism, would go to tribal burial grounds at nite, dig up graves, take the skulls and then sell them illegally to museums and other research institutes in the name of science. This was a major epidemic of western scientists feeling that they owned the rights to anything that would help advance the scientific understanding of people and the world, without caring about the people who it affected. 

     This is where i draw the parallel of science and religion. Western science is the new religion. Its dogma, any other view of the world is misguided and silly. Science can explain things better and more accurately, giving them the authority to usurp other peoples views and belongings because they possess the true methods of understanding the world. When i brought this up, a student tells me that there are religious scientists, so my analogy is false. I bring up the fact that there are Buddhist Christians, and his only response, partially joking, is that maybe buddhism isnt a religion then.

    Scientists are like fundamentalist christians in many regards. They do not challenge the assumptions and the box that their cosmology was created in. They claim greater evidence because you can 'see' and 'test' what they pronounce as fact. It is a different epistemological approach to knowledge, but much of philosophy (especially philosophy of science) shows how unstable many scientific foundations are. A.F. Chalmers is an excellent example of this, his book "What is this thing called Science?" was hugely influential in helping me understand the codified and dogmatic ideologies that permeate what is understood (or misunderstood) as to how science works better than religion.

    Im not knocking science, i use it all the time, am fascinated by it. But i also understand its shortcomings and how it can be used to justify ideological and political ends, like racism. For example, in the 1930's the most predominate school of science in the US was eugenics. No one spoke against it, even though today it is a black mark upon the history of science. Forced lobotomies, sterilization, and other atrocities were committed here for the sake of keeping 'morons' or genetically inferior people from reproducing. This also included unacceptable moral behavior!!!! my great grandmother on my fathers side got married when she got pregnant with her third kid, not because she wanted a husband, but because a single women with more than two kids was morally deviant, and would be institutionalized so she couldnt pass on these assumed genetic behavioral traits!!!!! This was the same science that Hitler directly used to support his Aryan movement in the mid 30's and 40's.

    Any system of knowledge has flaws. any system of knowledge tries to exert authority over world views in order to maintain is status as being 'truth'. This causes even the most noble of intentions to have ghastly and dark applications in the name of what is good. Science is no better than religion, its just another mask to be worn for justification of the status quo.