the inevitable transcendency of science

cogitans | Most people reject the idea of science as 'the inevitable arbiter of human differences' because scientists themselves seem to be -are in general, afflicted by virtually any and every failing of 'the common man' -and accountably so in that thruout the world so far the scientist is heir to (a) the neonate ignorance of all mankind and (b) an environment (mental and physical) of at least some ignorance in science and at least some 'primitively pecking-order-based structure' -'no better than anyone else' in that sense. 'The inevitable transcendency of science' however, is another matter. As surely as 'deliberative capability is a machine that goes by itself', so too does natural selection advantage science (and the scientist) in the evolution and progression of the whole -superceding and vestigializing, in that respect, the 'intellectual' ambiguities and inconsistencies inherent the evolution of 'knowledge' out of neonate ignorance and pecking order by (successively) more formally logical constructions (-stem cell research eventually superceding the 'human-being' of fetuses, for example, regardless of 'god-based' government). -It is, simply and ineluctably, a matter (mankind surviving that long :-) of 'operational consequence of fact' (mathematics implicit) eventually but inevitably superceding 'operational consequence of less than fact' (below).

The life of the scientist today may be 'tainted' much as that of the common man -religion, ethnicity, politics, the political mechanics of his profession and making money for 'pecking-order-based expression' in particular, but he tends, in general and out of knowledge, to respect the inherency of 'the scientist furthering science above all else' -compromising, even, then, 'pecking-order-based expression' in that respect. -Where, further, this does not 'obtain', it is 'the nature of the advancing scientist' to see to it that it does (example) -genetic imperative and natural selection driving the whole:

(*n) Consider the situation of two scientists resolving a problem -the two, equal in every physical and mental respect except for being at an impasse over 'the proper resolution' of some immediate problem -P, in this particular case, literally imposing his 'resolution' upon N. N reflects upon this however, and thereby observes P's 'pecking order' to have suddenly become 'part of the problem'; N, in other words, suddenly knows more about the overall situation than P, thus whether he goes along with P or not in this case, he has actually acquired more knowledge than N -to 'an eventual besting of Ns and their pecking orders'. (-from Pecking Order, Competition and Institution ...)

-the advancing scientist, in effect, superceding 'the obstacle of his machine that-goes-by-itself deliberative capability' -only a matter of time then, as the artifactuality of pecking order and noumenalism 'vestigializes' under successive dirigiste heurism.