benlehman

I don't think that fundamentalism is about belief trumping truth. Fundamentalism is about the viewpoint that if observed reality contradicts what you consider to be _axiomatic_, then your observations are in error, rather than your axioms. There are areas of thought where this is true (if your derivations from your axioms are rigourous enough). It is in opposition (though not "opposite") to the scientific viewpoint, but it is useful to remember that for much of history science was not a well respected approach. Much of the opposition to Galileo came from other natural philosophers who argued that if his observations came into conflict with reason, reason had to be trusted more than observation in a world that was full of error and misinterpretation. Science depends on measurement, and where there were few tools and techniques for measuring well, one could argue that thought experiment was in fact a more powerful tool. The realization that logic can have holes and inconsistencies that are fundamental is very, very recent.

Not to disagree that for many religious fundamentalists faith is the primary factor, and the generator of the axioms, but fundamentalism is not limited to religion, nor illogical. If anything it is overly so. And by that reckoning people who claim not to believe in the scientific method actually do not believe in it.

Marvelous argument. It speaks to me, more strongly than any arguments on either side of the line, including the ones I strongly agree with.

+i