A (good) scientist does not try to prove or dispove anything; hypotheses have their use, but they are not central to the scientific method. As a scientist, you study phenomena. You "establish the perimeter" of your empirical competence (your ability to collect meaningful data), and you go from there. When someone claims, say, a "communion with God", you register it. Maybe it is sheer nonsense, maybe it is something else. You don't make value-judgements based on the sensitivity of your instruments - be it a pH-meter or a human brain.
Sure, if someone says "Gays sould be stoned to death because my secret God-meter says so', you should resist fiercely. But wouldn't it be the same if I said "My not-so-secret pH-meter says so"?
Imagine yourself, briefly, in the middle of that political turmoil surrounding the first recognition of the HIV epidemic. For a year or two, it really appeared that AIDS is a specifically gay disease. Hard data had suggested so - being limited to a couple of locations in California. As time passed, we have realized that that was a complete illusion - an artifact of trivial epidemiologics - but if, at that point, it would be not LA and SF, but some less fortunate cities, somewhere in Russia or China - the "authorities" would certainly "have taken measures".
Religion would have nothing to do with it. They would justify it by "science". Just like the Nazis and the Soviets had justified their crimes by "science". Would it matter for victims?
Last edited by Cyrylek; 03-14-13 at 05:58 PM.
So enough of that absurd nonsense out of you.