Can you name something which has no predictive value which you would also consider to be "true"...?
If you were willing to stretch the definition of "useful" enough, then you could argue that since any idea, belief, or truth can inspire someone to action, anything could be considered useful. Of course, this also means that falsehoods are useful. See: propaganda.
But you and I both know that's not what's at issue here. Presumably, there is a true account of the world as it is. You've gone on record plenty of times before as claiming that science is the gateway to this true account of the world while rejecting any spiritual account; in the process, you've equated truth with usefulness, and dismissed any religious argument because it's not empirical.
I invite you to take back these comments. Unless you feel like you can back them up, naturally.
A fraction of the population actually practices science.
And the overwhelming majority of people in modern Western civilization have become intoxicated by its aroma of potential power and pleasure. The influence of something isn't determined by how many people practice it at its highest echelons. Consider: how many people during the Middle Ages were priests compared to the general population?
But seriously, what do you mean by "dominated the philosophy of the Western World." and "successful"...? Most religions are relatively inert and nonevangelical and so of course not as memetic as the scientific method. But, for example, Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam all managed to convert a far greater amount of people to act far more in line with their religion than science. I don't know of many scientists who would actually keep track of their own sleeping, eating and productivity data outside of work. I do know many religious people who purposefully restrict their diets, fast, donate all their money and preach about their religion because the religion said to do so.
What's this now? First, let me take a minor aside and mention that religions are always developing and growing. Even during the "dark ages," religion was undergoing some radical intellectual developments and, sometimes, schisms. See: Aquinas and the revolution of rational theism, the split between nominalism and traditionalism.
Now, I'm not particularly interested in comparing the "memetic influence" of religion against science, on the one hand because it's pointless and subjective, and on the other hand because we only have the proper historical distance to properly assess one of them. All that's worth mentioning is that science has been successful at memetically implanting itself into the social conscious.
I don't see how you can consider science as a method (and you don't I think) and consider it more popular and more effective than the most virulent forms of religion.
Earlier, I defined modern science as "scientism," which has certainly permeated the cultural milieu.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd