"Custom is the source of our strongest and most believed proofs. It persuades the mind without its thinking about the matter. It is custom that makes so many men Christians… Turks, etc." Blaise Pascal

We've come to accept what our ancestors tell us is the truth, because its how we've passed down what is science, so naturally the same holds true with religion. Our hard science is believed to be fact when it's told to us by an elder, until proven different by other hard science. This differs with religion because there is no hard science to back up a person's faith. A person can only assume one brand of belief after exhausting a variety of methods. Charles Sanders Pierce wrote in his essay The Fixation of Belief, that this broke down into four methods: The method of tenacity, the method of authority, the method of intuition and lastly the method of science. He claimed that the last of these was the best to use when being confronted with a philosophical question because it uses sound reasoning and observation, similar to hard sciences, to settle an answer. Considering that the scientific process is tedious, and in the case of organized religion impossible to exercise, the customs of our ancestors is easier to fall back upon.

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." Leonardo da Vinci

Pierce's method of tenacity argues that humans judge something to be true simply because they believe in it. No tangible proof needs to exist, since it has been passed down from elder to youth. Its accepted because of the wisdom that comes from experience. In the case of philosophy, basing an argument on the previous actions of an authority only exercises the memory, it doesn't appeal to innovative thought. 

3. Can you cite a recent controversy regarding a scientific or technical matter in which a value judgement was fundamentally involved?

The scientific breakthrough of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) has been proven to increase milk production as much as 10-15%. But there are some who argue that although rBGH has its benefits and has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, that it also has a dangerous side. On one hand the production of dairy has increased, but on the other, the side effects to the cattle have caused some to argue in favour of the bovine's wellbeing, and the wellbeing of the humans consuming the genetically engineered products. Until it can be proven without doubt that the side-effects of this growth hormone are negligible, the ethical choice of what to do in regards to the health issues of the injected cattle verses the needs of consumers will not be settled.

"One of the gross deficiencies of science is that it has not yet been defined what sets man apart from other animals." René Dubos

Since science must "explain away" what it cannot prove through measure and fact; to claim that man is more important than animal is unfeasible. One might assume that because the mother hen pecks at our hand that she is defending her young, but since the inner thoughts of an animal are impossible to read; the hard truth may be different. Darwin might argue that that man is different than animal due to the ability for complex thought and scientific development. But this, in my opinion, isn't valid. Man's only measuring stick for this theory, is based upon his own accomplishments. In this light, one could say that the western world is "smarter" than the eastern because it has made so many of life's technological breakthroughs. I beg to argue that the eastern cultures simply lacked the tools and materials that were necessary.