How the west lost

In the U.S. we reap the supposed benefits of western imperialism.

For instance, we have resources at the expense of forthright slaughter of American Indians and their culture; we further have attained economic and militaristic power through enslavement of first Africans, then the working-poor, and now we outsource enslavement in the Global South. (Note, by we, I primarily mean the elite, ruling classes, and to some extent, collectively as a society.)

One way in which we further colonize the Earth is through thought. The western academy and supporting structures systematically oppress some while remaining xenophobic to others. This sort of thought supremacy has so many scientists--many of which I know personally--quick to pontificate pedantically about their ardent adherence to their epistemology and NO others.

One example was in a recent article that played by The Scientific Method's rules (observation), but was dismissed because the people were either of color or subscribed to different philosophies: "The observations confirmed what until now had been only anecdotal reports from Amazonian inhabitants of wild cat species." (From Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708141620.htm.)

Recent conversations and arguments in the Blogosphere have only confirmed this working hypothesis that western science is subjective, exclusionary, and oppressive when discussing issues such as spirituality, dreams, and the sacred--all issues that the majority of scientists quickly reject because of their lack of supposed "testability," "repeatability," and other incontrovertible dogmatic principles of The Scientific Method.

My first of two issues is not with supposed objectivity of sense-based knowledge, it is the supremacy and oppression of other knowledge. Would it really hurt if people were spiritual? Read into their dreams? Or felt that some things in life are sacred?

Secondly, I have issue with the fact that too many of the scientists adopt an empiricist philosophy, which suppresses many critical human traits that must be expressed to attain a sustainable and healthy lifestyle (e.g., creativity).

That aside, what question I think is begging is: What purpose does science serve in the 21st century?

Many defenders will be quick to point out the quantity of life, improve people's lives, the convenience of modern technology.

But is that what science is trying to do? Because if so, that is, at its core, VERY problematic and arguably accounts for more problems than it has solved!

What I think that western science should do is, instead of blindly following their "objectivity," create a set of guiding goals or tenets or principles or rules of conduct OF HOW SCIENCE RELATES TO HUMANITY AND EARTH, such as the Hippocratic Oath.

Moreover, what we do see when it comes to the dysfunctional relationship that science has with society is scientists being used as pawns (e.g., tobacco- and oil-hired "scientists") and discreditably of science because of how they do (e.g., everything causes cancer) or do not (e.g., not treating people as equals because things are "too complicated;" I think that is an excuse to not effectively express themselves) communicate.

Having a higher set of "rules," will allow scientists to (i) reflect on their work, (ii) put their work in a framework with attainable goals, and (iii) give them a crutch when answers are expected and they more than often too proud to utter "I don't know."

In sum, I think we (scientists) need to make room for other types of knowledge in our lives, talk about it, and apply it.

Why must we adopt philosophies that search for The Answer to an unknown question?

Why not just have humanitarian- and environmental-based goals (to me, humans and Earth are the same) and try to reach them by what we learn though experimentation and observation and if not consider other ways?

I know I am, by no means, well-read in this area, and that I am not the first to write about this. I just has a weird day of empiricists blabbering poppycock.