But obviously my attempts to do this are not welcomed. You do not want to hear about knowledge that is not legitimized by your body of essays, idols, and peers, but that does not make it trivially true.

Quit being a martyr. Claiming to be persecuted does not help us understand your ideas, it just adds length to your walls of text.

I am trying to share these ideas with the members of this blog because they are severely lacking here.

You claim to want to help us out on some points. If you still think there is something lacking after having read the sequences with actual curiosity (not just following the link and deciding it doesn't fit your worldview), please help. There is a lot lacking, and we need to get new perspectives on things, but you need to understand our deviations before you can criticize them.

If you had read the sequences, specifically the stuff about words, we would be past this terminology discussion crap and into the actual substance.

sociology of power, Science and Technology Studies, Postmodern sociological theory, postcolonial anthropological theory, and the sociology of knowledge

Do those terms even mean anything? All I hear is you signaling vague academic authority. Clarify your writing and ideas and this will be easier.

EDIT: also, see orwell's "politics and the english language".

But obviously my attempts to do this are not welcomed. You do not want to hear about knowledge that is not legitimized by your body of essays, idols, and peers, but that does not make it trivially true.

"Trivially true" does not mean 'false', or even 'irrelevant'. See What is a trivial truth?.

You do not want to hear about knowledge that is not legitimized by your body of essays, idols, and peers, but that does not make it trivially true.

Have you read Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Many of us have and find it very interesting. But even if you apply post-modern methods to the scientific process, you still need to explain why science can predict which planes will fly and which will not.

I wouldn't mind learning more about those fields, provided the ideas are explained in rigorously without any handwaving and leaving out posturing and "political" arguments (in the wide sense of academic fields talking trash about each other, etc.).

First off, you are confusing belief and knowledge. Belief is what you were talking about with the religion example; they produce belief. Knowledge is beliefs that match reality.

Knowledge has nothing to do with social power, and your science example has a better explanation. We believe the things published in journals and said by scientists because expert opinion is strongish evidence for truth. Hearsay is usually worthless because most people's beliefs are not formed by a causal entanglement process with reality. Science hearsay is produced by causal entanglement, so we take it as good evidence.

Most of what we know is based on doing the experiments ourselves. I didn't read the layout of my house from a science journal, I didn't read about the color of my socks from a science journal, I didn't learn how to make a good stew from a science journal. The only type of knowledge we get from academic science is general theories about how the processes of reality work, and that is a very small subset of knowledge. We learn about that stuff from academia instead of on our own because it is more efficient for one person to do the experiment and publish than for all of us to build particle accelerators in our backyards.

Your argument stinks of trying to get us to accept some definition of knowledge so you can use it for other purposes that we wouldn't agree with otherwise. Give up; jedi word tricks will not work on us. See 37 ways that words can be wrong.

I know that my shoes are tied (having just glanced down to verify).

Does this fact have the blessing of the scientific establishment? Is it not a fact? Is it not knowledge?

I would say that I have knowledge that my shoes are tied, and that it has not been legitimized (or, indeed, considered) by "power".

Edited to add: Unless you contend that I constitute "power" - in which case I would like to agree, but please convince the rest of the world.

The theory I am suggesting is that any global religion has existed for this long because it contains attributes beneficial to human survival ( benefits to human survival are not limited to the promotion of literacy; though I would bet that is a key attribute).

Are you familiar with meme theory? A seemingly stronger hypothesis is that global religion has existed for this long because it contains attributes beneficial to survival of global religion.

Edited to add: It is not clear to me that literacy is beneficial (on net) to human survival in an environment with little written knowledge available; there are certainly benefits to be had, but opportunity cost as well. If it is, in fact, directly beneficial, it is also not clear to me why people wouldn't adopt it in the absence of religion.

To what extent does a pre-existing belief in a stable order that is waiting to be perfected lead to the primacy of formal science in a society? I think that is a really interesting question.

This is a good starting point for inquiry. I would change "does" to "did." I would also broaden the question to include cons as well as pros, i.e. "To what extent did a philosophy including a pre-existing belief in a stable order that is waiting to be perfected lead to the primacy of formal science in a society?" If there are anti-scientific effects from any philosophy or historical philosophies believing in a stable order, that's important to keep track of too if one is making a claim about those philosophies and not just their positive aspect.

Thanks for clarifying.