posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:50 PM
[***NOTE TO THE OP*** Overall i agree with you about "science as the means to study things" but this does not comprise science as a whole, it
comprises science as a discipline.
I have no problem with science. I LOVE it, it is the language that allows us to understand our universe. But, i am realistic, i am not afraid to admit
that science, like any other human construct, is flawed.
Science and by extension the academia around it are not protected from human-bias or socio-political agendas. Prime example? Eugenics programs, global
warming hysteria, and of course the ever raging war of Science VS Religion. I don't bring my religion into science, yet there are many people who
claim to be scientists that insist on bringing their science into my religion, .
Science and religion are pursuits of two completely different truths. What i have a problem with is so called "scientists" such as richard dawkins
or sam harris trying to whip people up with this hysteria that somehow religion is holding science back. Meanwhile we have figured out how to program
human skin cells to act as stem cells, there is a 17 mile long 9 billion dollar supercollider underneath the borders of france and switzerland is
probing into some of the greatest questions of all time, attempting to get us closer to a unified theory of physics. Amazing advances are made every
year in the fields of electronics ( look up the Neurogrid concept by kwabena boahen if you want to see how advanced we are now in computing alone)
and theoretically we could build a whole new animal or other complex lifeform from what is essentially dead lifeless matter.
Science is NOT being impeded. It never was impeded.
The problem is that science is not this magical infallible thing that many scientists try to make it out to be. If you disagree with climate change
science or evolutionary science you are called a knuckle dragger or flat earther. They have their flaws, and simply aknowledging them can get you
ridicule despite the amount of "peer review" you have.
And that is another thing. Why is it that scientists think that somehow peer-review is a magical objectivity device? Logic tells us that when one or
more people who share the same view on a subject band together objectivity. So if the NAS (which is supposedly 85% atheist) were to review a solid
empirical basis for a creationist or ID argument (but note this example is not limited to creationism or ID, it can happen in any field) they could
potentially suppress it by claiming it didn't stand up to peer review, when in reality the data could show otherwise, and most of us would not be
able to question their judgment because we do not have access to the data or were there to watch the peer review process, we have to assume that human
bias can still exist. But above that since the average person does not have access to a life-science lab, super colliders or even something as
rudimentary as neodynium magnets we have to put a degree in faith in our scientists as well as our science. We have to assume that current scientific
theory and data that is regarded as fact is the result of honest reviews, conclusions, interpretations and experiments. We have to have faith that
Editors of peer-reviewed journals are not choosing to leave out key-facts or even entire stories that stood up to their peer review. If tomorrow it
was announced that empirical evidence for god or other "paranormal" phenomenon was discovered do you think people such as Richard Dawkins or James
Randi would readily accept it? No, i do not expect that from christians, and i sure as hell would not expect it from people who's whole lives had
been dedicated to "debunking" religion,deism and other arguments for "higher power." especially when an entire scientists work hinges on another
scientists work as being fact.
I'm sorry if you think science is this magical method that is immune to human fallibility and should not be criticized then i think you have more or
less forged yourself a secular religion wherein empiricism is the faith and science is the god.