I was in complete agreement all the way to that statement. And that is really what this thread is about.
You have pointed out and addressed the issue of the theory and ideal of Science. But its ideal is being betrayed on a vast scale and that is what I am pointing out. I dearly love the real ideal of Science and that is why I get a little perturbed when I see such a huge disregard for its intention. As PhyBang stated, “I don’t care what Science intends”.
No that is indirectly a large concern in this discussion.
Hawkings is a good example of what is basically an evangelist and PR man who gains from fascinating speculation, quickly reported by the media, that sounds scientific, but in reality is not at all scientific nor “peer reviewed”. To seem scientific, all that is required is a show of math that no one in the population either understands or cares to try to verify. The fundamental concepts involved are usually the pure speculation and fundamental flaw in the dissertation.
Perhaps you are not aware that the Catholic church has in the Vatican, a very rigorous peer review process as well, even better than that of Science. And anyone speculating too loudly as Hawkings to the population will be tethered quickly by the Vatican. That Church is very careful to investigate and ensure that anything the Pope might say, is highly probably true. The membership then is required to take certain things he says as infallibly true or find a different church, but only certain things that are distinguished.
That is exactly my point.
It is the population and their social engineers guiding them with fascination and passion who cause the corruption of the otherwise superior process. If such was merely a few people getting out of hand, I wouldn’t complain and I would expect Science professionals to take care of them. But such isn’t the case.
In stead of Science following its more original altruistic design, it has become overrun and controlled by politics and persuasion. There has always been a little of that, but it has gotten ridiculous. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a good example of how Science has always been willing to accept as “Law” something that was never proven and in fact logically disproven 120 years ago by Maxwell (“Maxwell’s demon”). That “Law” was promoted, not for its soundness from scientific process at all, but due to political incentives stemming largely from the religions. That “Law” implies that there must be a Creator, else there could be no creation or life.
But even without political influence, the “Law”, being shown to be untrue, was reworded over and over so as to make it seem that Science never really had it wrong. Today that “Law” merely states that there is a tendency to…" Now since when is something a “Scientific LAW” merely because it is a tendency? Is it a scientific law of nature that a female is shorter than a male human?
Science has been involved in their PR and ego for generations and it has gotten far worse, not better. So they are really NOT what you are describing at all. I seriously wish they were and would return to it.
The issue of global warming is another example of how Science is corrupted by politics. The extreme number of people online who misunderstand their Science scripture versus (as required by law in the US) yet get irate at any insinuation that what they think “Science says” might be false, is another example of not how a few people are going astray, but how a huge population is being actually enticed and led astray.
You point out that Science is a “relatively” better way to go. Well, that can be debated on grounds of what really leads to a better tomorrow, but as far as discerning truth versus fiction, I think the concept of Science wins hands down. The problem is that it is no longer in the business of discerning truth versus fiction. You seem to be unaware of that. But then how is that really different than “having faith in the church”?
If I stated that the Church of Science is being led astray, could you prove me wrong? I have no doubt that if you tried, you would discover by investing in a more truly scientific manner, that I was all too right.
It is for the sake of Science that I accuse it of being a Church. The sad thing is that I do not need to exaggerate to say it. Do a search on “scientism”, see what you get. Of course there will be those who exaggerate the concern, but keep looking. You will find some very rational people who are very concerned of how much deception and worship is being sold as Science without any tethering at all. I can point out many of their methods merely because my carrier was in “intelligence design” which allows for me to quickly perceive when something is being done to disrupt intelligence versus enhance it.
As churches go, Science is better at knowing when they are actually right, but also better at ensuring that you are complying to “proper behavior” and not “sinning against the Church”. The examples are throughout the forums on the Internet and very predominate here as can be easily shown (and recently has been). But then, today, largely due to those who used Science, how can any forum be established based on only the few remaining rational thinkers? It is a business, It has to do what works and what works, is to cause people to be faithful followers, not better thinkers.
I suspect that if Abram had not found his excuse to not sacrifice his son on the alter that day so very long ago, we wouldn’t have the billions of mere followers and sheep to have to try to deal with now.