(May 4, 2015 at 11:24 am)AdamLOV Wrote: 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...[A]mong 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...
I thoroughly subscribe to this point of view. Without absolute truth standards to say that "science is true while religion is false" makes no sense. However, it's also true that you can't do a bioassay using Inca methods. I don't want my doctors to get stupid and prescribe religious healing for my leg abscess when religion isn't the appropriate tool. We can say objectively that Inca healing tools were much less effective than modern medicine when it comes to prolonging life and physiological health.