Science and validating arguments

In every reading we have done the main focus has been on science. Within each of these readings science is portrayed as the ultimate authority, and the scale that is used to judge everything against. So does science provide the validity of arguments more so than another form of support, such as emotional or ethical support? Is science the strongest support available to an argument of any form? In the Lost World, science was given the utmost respect and the masters of science were even compared to the mighty gods on Mount Olympus. The backing of the scientific community made the professors seem like gods among mere mortals to the onlookers at the first assembly. Does science really garner this much respect from the general public? Why are people so much more likely to believe an argument if there is scientific support? What is the force behind science that allows it to make arguments so valid?

Lingua France and The Lost World

In the excerpt, Lingua Franca by Carole McDonnell, a clear distinction is made between the various caste present in the society through the use of scarves of different colors. Shadow-of-Light-Turning mentioned that Mist should still wear her green scarf that signified her as a member of the science class. There is a certain sense of pride in being associated with that particular caste. This is a sense of pride that all scientists generally possess due to their superior intellect. As a member of the science caste ones aim is not to blend in but to seek new knowledge. This caste system can also be seen in present society not to that extreme degree and in the Lost World. An example in the Lost World can be seen in the way Challenger acts throughout the novel in his manner of speech and the way he presents himself. Do you believe that the comparison is valid? If you do, are there any other examples that can be drawn from Lingua Franca or the Lost World?

Throughout The Lost World and Mary Louise Pratt's essay it is evident that the scientific community held a stereotype against indigenous cultures in undiscovered lands. The natives were often viewed as a sub-species of humans. This assumption has since been debunked and it is acknowledged that different cultures are not inferior cultures. However, this trend in thought was perpetuated for so long because it was incorporated into the scientific doctrine as an unwritten, ubiquitous truth. Are there any assumptions made in today's scientific community that scientists may be scoffed at for making in the future? One example I've noticed is that individuals who do not complete college are often disregarded though they may also contribute to the universal scientific knowledge. Do you feel this is a safe assumption to make?