If I were an Atheist

[AdamLOV]

The process of manufacturing bioassays, let alone interpreting the data obtained via this method, is just as esoteric as the process of interpreting religious-mystical-ecstatic experiences. A brilliant analysis of the scientific process and how scientific facts are constructed is contained in Latour-Woolgar's Laboratory Life. Highly recommended reading, the example of uncertainty relating to bioassay validity may be found in that book.

Lets assume that I can't bothered to read a whole book to check this.

What are the bullet point facts.

The point is that scientific and religious "facts" alike are constructed by the truth-building activities of specialists. What becomes truth is what has gone through officially sanctioned channels of translation. (This in no way implies that there is no reality outside of human cognition, merely that our own decisions about what is true are relative).

We may take the example of lab rats. For a member of, say, a tribe that believes in animism, dissecting lab rats and inputing the data into computers is meaningless. Various biological concepts are not sources of knowledge for the Inca. Similarly, one who is not a molecular biologist has no idea about what is going on when lab rats are dissected, and data is obtained from their entrails and uploaded into computers. What constitutes relevant evidence is decides by scientists. Similarly, among the Inca, priests decides what constituted evidence of, say, a dog having mystical properties. The two systems of knowledge are different, but neither may be considered any less true. Because truth (and truth criteria) are social constructs does not make them invalid. Every assemblage, including truth assemblages (religion, science) are constructed by human and/or nonhuman actants. In a nutshell, this is the basic kernel of Latour-Woolgar's argument.