why such huge veneration of science?

Post Reply New Topic

So... is there a strong Evolution / Natural Selection aspect to this?

I do think humans get caught up in a Web of Competition especially in America where I think we tend to become over-competitive. Some people like Jeffrey Skilling of the infamous ENRON read up on these concepts and embrace the idea of the so-called Survival of the Fittest or The Selfish Gene(allegedly Skillings favorite book) as described by Richard Dawkins. Also, I think Skilling fits the profile the OP describes of an Elitist manipulating others for profit.

My hope would be that by comprehending Darwinian competition, we learn to avoid such terrible and wasteful behavior. After a point, when a human society is flourishing, such vicious competition should be left behind IMO.

So maybe this is one of those concepts that the OP feels has to much of a dark side? Is Darwin's Evolution an idea that to many use to justify their selfish and destructive behavior feeling that they're the fittest Alphas who get ahead by trampling the weak?

In fact, maybe Darwin's Evolution is one of those ideas the OP feels has to much 'veneration' from the science minded community?

It isn't meant to be an argument against what you said, which is why I opened my post with "that is absolutely true". I agree that no individual has the time, resources or expertise to repeat all the experiments relevant to their life. Some experiments can be repeated and it is a standard part of any good childhood education to teach the kids to repeat them. But many can't. At some point you have to decide to trust other people who have done the experiments.

This is where the value of repeatability comes in. Repeatability is one of the core features of the scientific method. Any experiment must be repeatable by (many) others and they must get the same results in order for the data (and conclusions) to be valid. This is the self-correct against data-fudging, hoaxes, scams, corruption and good faith research that is nevertheless wrong. Trust need not be blind. When research is repeated by multiple people and groups around the globe not affiliated with each other but getting the same results, the odds that the data is correct get higher.

Doublethink. You claim to not be attempting to argue against me. But what you write is a mix of on the one hand fillout information with no clear purpose, since debate is what is attempted here, and on the other hand arguments against mine, even though you claim it isn't. I would appreciate if you tie together the loose string of information into some sort of main point. My view remains that you are not looking deep enough for your information to have any real bearing on the discussion. You are beating around the bush.

The reason for my mix of agreement and disagreement with you is that I agree with one of your points but disagree with your apparent conclusion.

I'll format it differently which will hopefully be clearer.

Agree: That no individul can repeat every experiment and must choose to trust others' data

Disagree: That this trust of (some) others' data translates into a blind trust and almost religious veneration of conclusions that researchers present to the public.

I think that what you aren't understanding is why I said "conclusions that researchers present to the public" instead of "science". Science is a process, not a result. You haven't been making that distinction throughout this thread.

I mentioned that I think corruption is enlightenment. And I compared science and technology to Christianity and socialism/liberalism. I think there is a lot to this comparison of science and technology to Christianity and socialism/liberalism. One example. Feminism vs smartphones and social networks such as facebook. Very much in common. Both lead to alienation, neurosis, introversion and mental inhibition. I have read about Judaism and the path of pain vs the path of truth. This is in Gospel of Thomas:

Feminism creates a lot of frustrated lonely men, among other things. Their interest in women is likely to decrease. And men and women will become more or less androgynous and asexual over time. Or take something like information technology. I think we will become so interconnected that basically every thought will be revealed. If you've done anything in private that you wouldn't be fine with telling everybody about you'll suffer. Doesn't that sound a lot like "judgment day"? I think judgment day is not a day but a gradual process. So what I'm getting at here is that I don't know what science really is in the greater picture, but I think it is a spiritual thing and that suffering is a big part of it, suffering that will enlighten people. Is it painting yourself into a corner, the Chinese finger trap, or is it something else, I don't know. But my view of it is different from the view most people have. And I still think that people have blind veneration for science. They claim to be open-minded and questioning, but can't see the forest for all the trees. It's not different from how it was in the past, there's still very much an outermost exoteric layer of a religion and a hierarchy of enlightenment.

I challenge anyone, anywhere, anytime to repeat or demonstrate the basic tenets of Darwinism. All the Natural Laws that say it's an impossible superstition are easily demonstrable anywhere, anytime... yet the salesmen who are selling this stuff call it "science" as a marketing tool. I will contend that Darwinism is a monstrous hoax, a preposterous nonsense deliberately intended to pamper unbridled egos.

The OP is right. A lot of people do treat science as though it provides much stronger protection than it really does. Premature closure makes it through peer-review quite often. I'd even go farther and say that academia is especially vulnerable to it because they're very sequential (to the point of making it a fetish).

Darwin was the polar opposite - extremely global and non-linear.

Then if true, are you saying that all biological science, which is based on Darwin's theories, is wrong?

I challenge anyone to invoke his or her particular god or gods and bring about a miracle - an event that is inexplicable by any known natural law or reasonable extrapolation thereof.

How about the spontaneous regeneration of all missing limbs to every amputee everywhere in the world, and all at exactly the same time?

Now THAT would be a miracle!

You would not believe the testimony of miracles if you did not see them happen with your own eyes. And your demand for miracles in the fashion you want is asking God to be your puppet. I have heard testimonies of miracles, and I have prayed for the healing of people who were at death's door who recovered in ways inexplicable by doctors. But what do you care? You didn't see it or experience it first hand, so anything I could say means nothing.

Excuses ... Excuses ...

I'm not only asking for a genuine miracle, but a selfless one that would enhance and likely extend the lives of millions of people all over the world.

And here you sit, making excuses for your god.

You will have to explain how I am making excuses for my God. I did not such thing, but I did say that you were making excuses to not believe. That is all.

Pathetic... just like the effort of 'Science' to better the tried and trusted method of the Chinese to treat malaria.
The 'miracle' was a 2000-year old tea recipe.

Do some reading on Artimisinin and you might just figure where I'm coming from. If not, your loss, can't be bothered to waste the energy beyond providing some basic links that I'll put in individual quote boxes for clarity

Morphic resonance is beyond my interests but I like his views on other things...

My dad (a professor of medicine) makes this argument a lot, and I agree with him up to a point. I start to disagree when he uses it to shift blame to the media (or business, or the uneducated) for things that really were academic mistakes.

Example: When I was younger, the psychiatric world spoke of finding 'a gene' (singular) and 'a cure' for Aspergers. I couldn't figure out why, since all of the evidence I'd seen could just as easily point to an environmental condition. In fact, I still can't find anything that would have supported them. You can't use evidence that came out years later to justify toying with kids' lives at the time, and even a lot of the later data is ambiguous.

That's a case of premature closure, and one for which you can't blame the media.

That's an example of the premature closure that I referred to earlier.

Healing the sick and restoring sight to the blind helps, and making a lot of people extremely wealthy probably helps more. Really, in the end, it is all about the Benjamin's, which tend to gravitate toward cultures that invest heavily in the sciences.