Must Scientific Knowledge Be Considered Relative?

AGAIN, and you know this how?

I think I see your point, farmerman. Whether individuals are programmed by culture to a "significant extent" is basically what this thread is about.

Is this to suggest that a bias can't be hardwired?

I am not even sure what "hardwiring" means. My view of human nature would probably not include concepts like that.

Genetic programming is what I mean by it. Surely your view of human nature includes that concept? If not, we may have an even more interesting topic to discuss.

To me, genes play only a minor role.

Fair enough -- although some would strongly disagree with you.

Even playing a minor role though it seems possible that in could, along with cultural programming, present a scientist with biases with which to contend. I would think they might even be harder to detect.

I doubt it; scientific research is a universal cooperative with checks and balances from most developed countries.

EO Wilson is taking lots of heat for proposing a "hardwire" argument for social evolution.

HOWEVER, thats not the point I wanted JL to admit.

Oh forget it!

And, as we all know, scientists are not subject to the foibles of lesser men,

But there are scientists who are lesser men.

My point exactly

No, I want to try to answer your question, when I know what it means. Are you asking me how I know that, unlike ants who behave without the benefit of cultural conditioning, humans behave toward situations with respect to the definitions they have of them, and that their definitions/interpretations of situations result both from their individual creativity and their social cultural conditioning (what I called "programming")?
Of course I don't know this in any absolute way, but I think it's consistent with more of the evidence. And I think this goes a bit toward answering the OP--"Must scientific knowledge be considered relative?" I would be very hesitant to consider scientific knowledge ABSOLUTE. And I am confident you would agree given that all scientific knowledge is provisional. Being a progressive institution its knowledge is--almost by definition-- subject to revision.

I think I understand what you are saying; after all, the first homo-sapiens who walked on the planet had no real knowledge of what we call science. All their actions were fundamental to survival, and not much else.

What we call "modern conveniences" are usually made for increased efficiency to save time - which in a way extends our virtual life spans.

Yes, C.I., knowledge did not begin only after the emergence of Science. Image all the eons of trial and error discoveries during Man's formative period. The "scientific method" is a great invention, not only because it gave rise to knowledge but because it does so so much faster; it is so efficient a method for determining what ideas about the world are reliable and which are not (verification and falsification).
It can be said that mankind has survived not only because of its knowledge but also because many of its illusions (e.g., myths and fantasies) have provided some of the ideological strengths needed to form and maintain social solidarity. They may have been both false and functional for survival.

Yes, C.I., knowledge did not begin only after the emergence of Science. Image all the eons of trial and error discoveries during Man's formative period. The "scientific method" is a great invention, not only because it gave rise to knowledge but because it does so so much faster; it is so efficient a method for determining what ideas about the world are reliable and which are not (verification and falsification).
It can be said that mankind has survived not only because of its knowledge but also because many of its illusions (e.g., myths and fantasies) have provided some of the ideological strengths needed to form and maintain social solidarity. They may have been both false and functional for survival.

My current understanding is that scientific knowledge is inferential and therefore can never attain certainty, given the limitations of human perception. Hume, et al.

Science professionals have specialized skills related to their field. In addition, advancements in scientific instruments have greatly expanded what can be observed. To me, these factors have greater impact than outside influences.

I experience modern conveniences all the time when I travel; flights can take me half way around the world in one day. If we think how long it took past explorers to travel the same distance, it reflects in almost everything we do.

Hume's verificationism isn't a widely endorsed epistemology. Further, inference may not entail certainty, but that doesn't mean knowledge is relative, nor can we attain justified true beliefs regarding reality.