Reply #12: I didn't mean it as a theory but as a description

[starroute]

You may have to broaden your sense of "science" to see what I'm getting at. I'm referring to the entire body of information about the natural world that is passed on to the young and that forms the basis for group decisions.

In hunter-gatherer societies, it's the knowledge of plants and animals, of the seasons of the year, of how to chip a stone tool and glue it to a wooden handle, of the uses of medicinal and psychedelic substances.

In simple agricultural societies, it has to do with farming and irrigation, with the yearly movement of the stars, with the construction of houses and granaries.

In early civilizations, the knowledge starts to get more specialized. There are professional doctors and midwives and builders of roads and aqueducts. But the body of knowledge is still held by the society as a whole and is not a matter of argument.

It's only in Western culture over the past few centuries that traditional knowledge has been replaced by theoretical knowledge and has gotten dragged into religious disputes. This may be a reflection of how fast our body of knowledge is growing, or perhaps of the extent to which we now operate on the basis of laboratory studies rather than hands-on experience. But whatever the precise causes, its seriously interferes with out ability to communicate with one another or to agree on the best ways for getting things done.