"It may well be hard-wired into the DNA to some degree,"
That part is amenable to actual, scientific investigation, at least in principle. Also, this might be very useful to find out. What are the deltas?
"but it certainly has a great deal to do with the pervading philosophy of a given society."
As description, this could be part of anthropology; as prescription, I don't see how it could ever be a part of science.
The danger isn't necessarily with dogma, per se - it's in assuming that we have a piece of knowledge with one degree of intellectual support when it's really at a different level.
We start out saying that some very unlikely thing for which we have no support at all is a 'distinct possibility,' and then we're asserting that it's likely (even in the face of no evidence), and suddenly we're speaking as if it were a justifiable assumption.
It's NOT that the idea is wrong or false or even harmful in itself that's the issue. Dogmatism is inevitable when we can't even conceptually test a thing.
Crochet is very useful, but it's not science. Making the materials that are used for crochet might involve a lot of technology (the application of science). There might even be some useful mathematics involved - I wouldn't know, I don't crochet. But crochet is not a science. Theology is not a science. Ethics is not a science. Papier-mache is not a science. I suspect a lot of psychology is not a science. I doubt "political science" is a science. Probably a lot of the actual practice of medicine is not a science.
Saying something is not scientific is not the same as declaring it unimportant.
