How Science Became A New Religion

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Or as some people like to phrase it, "you have to know what is IN the box, in order to think outside the box".

That I agree with. But that's only just part of what was exposed in my OP. There's also the part where theories already in place are feeling threatened by the presence of new ideas:

To expect every scientist to react coolly and objectively to a competitor's idea is wishful thinking, though there are some scientists who approach the ideal. Intriguingly, Mitroff found that it was often the top scientists who were the most strongly committed to their ideas.

Tom Van Flandern commented to us:

I have taken aside several colleagues whose pet theories are now mainstream doctrine, and asked quizzically what it would mean to them personally if an alternative idea ultimately prevailed. To my initial shock (I was naive enough that I did not see this coming), to a person, the individuals I asked said they would leave the field and do something else for a living. Their egos, the adulation they enjoy, and the satisfaction that they were doing something important with their lives, would be threatened by such a development. As I pondered this, it struck me that their vested interests ran even deeper than if they just had a financial stake in the outcome (which, of course, they do because of grants and promotions). So a challenger with a replacement idea would be naive to see the process as anything less than threatening the careers of some now-very-important people, who cannot be expected to welcome that development regardless of its merit.

Yes, sure, ideas about the expansion of the universe escaped such rigidity. But between you and me, new expansion rate ideas weren't a big challenge to mainstream theories of science already in place - no big paradigm shift in physical theories were needed. You don't need to review gravity laws or anything like that.

While i always enjoy hearing differing theories on standard models
the reason the standard models are accepted is because we built
the modern world on them, while some of the more speculative
astrophysics work is still being verified, allot of it has been found
to be correct, also i have never been led to believe that stars in
spiral galaxies are on any kind of "perfect" orbit, they simply orbit
on their orbital path, science is really just observation, religion is
assumption with no observation to back it up at all, religion claims
prayer works, we have tested it, i have tested it, it doesn't so far
as anyone looking can tell, you might as well just wish someone
well, its the same thing.

Science may be in a tough spot right now because of the commercialization
it has experienced but it is by no means on the same level as religion.

If indeed the standard models we have are wrong it will come to light
whether or not they want it to honestly, as science is constantly applied
to the real world problems with it tend to effect the real world in way that
cannot be ignored, where as religion says prayer works and its really hard
to tell because what if it just happened? science says things must work and
if they do not then bridges collapse and buildings fall down, computers
wont work and we sure as heck cant send probes outside our own solar
system.

The official 9/11 government-media fairy tale is probably the best example of science being owned by politics, therefore being EFFECTIVELY a religion, or enough so overall. We're supposed to believe in a physically unique event - catastrophic damage allegedly caused by mere jet fuel alone (not to mention the lack of a 757 at the Pentagon) - where there's NOTHING physically similar enough that has happened before or since 9/11. REAL science requires duplication, testing, PROOF (what a concept).

Originally posted by swanne
Yes, sure, ideas about the expansion of the universe escaped such rigidity. But between you and me, new expansion rate ideas weren't a big challenge to mainstream theories of science already in place - no big paradigm shift in physical theories were needed. You don't need to review gravity laws or anything like that.

If you set a standard that a big paradigm shift in physical theories is needed to convince you that science isn't a religion, you may be setting the standard a little too high, because remember; there is a lot of evidence for what's "in the box" with a lot of mainstream theories.

Speaking of alternate gravity laws, I don't really see philosophical opposition to the idea. I've read material by physicists who would love to have any explanation to solve dark matter including a modified gravity theory.

The problem isn't religious dogma, it's that the evidence only partially supports the idea, so even if we do need to modify gravity theory, there's still something else going on, like dark matter. Modified gravity theories can't explain bullet cluster observations, but they might explain some other things and some physicists have explored these ideas.

reply to post by swanne


If you do some research on the psychology of scientists, you'll find that they are their own worst enemy on advancing science due to their egos and attitudes towards one another as well as new ideas. This is why it can turn into a very slow and painful process.

reply to post by swanne


Fascinating article! Thank you for posting it. I have a similar experience to you. I'm a member of the Physics Forum and presented an alternative interpretation to a natural phenomenon - that I thought (and still think) is better. I was hoping for discussion, instead my thread was stopped and I was told to go elsewhere - in fact ATS was recommended. They said the forum was only for answering questions or discussing mainstream physics - no new ideas. I told them it was a shame, but it is their choice.

Heres a way to look at this issue, which makes your OP seem somewhat misguided.

Hundreds of years ago Galileo Galilei, often called the father of modern science, suggested something that we now know to be true, something which saw him placed under house arrest until his death, for even daring to suggest. He theorised that instead of the sun going around our planet, our planet orbits the sun. It was religious zealots who had him restricted to the grounds of his own property for saying so.

Move into this time however, and it is currently being suggested that space warping engines, similar in priniciple to those familiar to fans of Star Trek, may actually be possible, and that utilising this type of propulsion may indeed lead to faster than light travel. Note the total lack of zealot chest thumping and reference to scripture (or Einstein in this case) currently comming out of universities, professors, delegations of highly influencial scientists ragging on the idea... they arent.

If science were a religion, then this would be very different. The french fellow who worked out some of the mathematics and piped up "you know, this might actually work as an idea guys!" would have been run out of town (or orbit perhaps) and never heard from again (save as a fluctuation in the fabric of space time caused by his attaining relativistic speeds before leaving the solar system).

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Heres a way to look at this issue, which makes your OP seem somewhat misguided.

Hundreds of years ago Galileo Galilei, often called the father of modern science, suggested something that we now know to be true, something which saw him placed under house arrest until his death, for even daring to suggest.

If science were a religion, then this would be very different.

Science is a Method. Religion is a Presumption. The problem is not with science, rather in socially active groups, pretending to represent science, masquerading that their group's religion equals scientific consensus. They have always sought to control the reigns of science, then and now. This is what was occurring in Galileo's time.

While I do not agree with the OP on all his counts, I do support what he may be trying to say. These same religious people who persecuted Galileo, who ruled the universities then, still rule the universities now. They have simply changed their religion to Nullism. They switched from brown robes to blue robes. They still practice the same persecution and presumption as always. They are still priests of thought control and denial, in a blood feud with those they dislike, for control of science. They just changed robes to something more modernly acceptable. House arrest has been replaced with more insidious and damaging punishments.

Religion: The compulsory adherence to to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.

When you see someone 'representing science' tendering sciency-sounding rationale as to why the Scientific Method is unnecessary on an issue, attacking researchers in specific domains they do not like, contending that we already have an issue figured out and proclaiming that further research is foolishness....

...be very wary. In this regard, the OP has a point.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you set a standard that a big paradigm shift in physical theories is needed to convince you that science isn't a religion, you may be setting the standard a little too high, because remember; there is a lot of evidence for what's "in the box" with a lot of mainstream theories.

That's the point: the guys I quoted in my OP are expressing the opinion that a big paradigm shift shouldn't be the only trigger to science evolution. Yes you gotta know what's in the box. But what many start to critic is the smallness, almost elite nature, of this box.

Modified gravity theories can't explain bullet cluster observations, but they might explain some other things and some physicists have explored these ideas.

Yes, exactly . But in many textbooks, including encyclopedias like Wikipedia (which many people do rely on), Modified Gravity is classified as obsolete. I fear this may discourage some physicists from exploring these alternatives in favour of mainstream ones.


By the way I just want to tell you I don't intend my posts as attacks against you, just as a mild debate about this aspect of science. Just to avoid misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Budapest
reply to post by swanne

 

Fascinating article! Thank you for posting it. I have a similar experience to you. I'm a member of the Physics Forum and presented an alternative interpretation to a natural phenomenon - that I thought (and still think) is better. I was hoping for discussion, instead my thread was stopped and I was told to go elsewhere - in fact ATS was recommended.

Hm, it's good to hear from a fellow ATSer who actually did witnessed the system's protective reaction. Thanks for your input! I am surprised that ATS was recommended . This was actually quite a drastic move (from them, I mean). I'm glad I didn't signed up.

I must admit am now a bit curious as to what was your theory you exposed. Would you like to discuss it over PM?

I agree with the OP that there is a "church" of science. At this stage in the game of life (64 years old) I have a pretty good idea of what people are about and except for very very few people, it is not a quest for truth.

I think Bertrand Russell put it pretty well when he said words to the effect of:

"Most people would rather die than think and most do."

There are numerous examples in science of prominent members of the Church of Science who have chucked the data rather than chuck the orthodox theory.

If I remember correctly comments by prominent scientists in Scientific American continued to deny the possibility of heavier than air flight for two years after the Wright brothers had been doing it.

It is a religion. I mean there is science for logical sake, such as how and why plants grow, and other things which truly are proveable and etc. Then there are other things considered 'science' which supposedly have proof, but it is indirect and require more faith to believe than any other religion, such as evolution. You might say "Well you don't understand evolution or so and so." But here is a question for you; How would you define abiogenesis? There was a thread about that from before, and I notice other arguments about what is so and so, and what does this really mean, you know things that aren't black and white like science should be.

Lets compare some things; You have "Christianity" which in its essence is; Christ died for your sins, if you accept that, then you are saved. Then you have literally a thousand different versions and denominations of that, not all working together, and many contradictions of the others. Its so simple it should be without denominations right? Then look at "Science" search any thread here about science and you will find nobody agrees with anybody, there are too many versions of the supposed one truth of logic and nature, too many people trying to prove one theory over another, theories which aren't black and white that you cant really observe. So why does it become like this? Simple...

"Truth" is given to man either through discovery in nature, or by God, and man warps the truth through trying to control, and through pride. Does this say the Bible is warped? Nope, because I just told you the simple truth of the Bible, and does it say the same about nature and logic? Nope, because surely if we can observe and prove something, then we can call it scientifically proven? But the things were theorizing about cant be proven, only supposedly proven. So yes, I say it again; If you believe in something without proof, it is faith, so call it science or evolution or atheism, whatever you want, if it requires faith, then it is a "religion".

reply to post by honested3

So yes, I say it again; If you believe in something without proof, it is faith, so call it science or evolution or atheism, whatever you want, if it requires faith, then it is a "religion".

Proof is hard to come by in the scientific world. You don't often see the word used except by those not involved with science. Evidence on the other hand can be found.

If you "believe in something" without evidence, that is faith. There is an awful lot of evidence for evolution.

Science says, "I wonder how that happened? I wonder if and how I can go about finding out."
Faith says "I know how that happened. God did it."
See the difference?

See the problem with challenging theories of Physics is that the theories of physics can be proven with experiments. Most of the core equations and theories of Physics have much experimental evidence backing them up. So in this field, it makes perfect sense to ignore hypothesis that have no evidence backing them up.

Let's look at a different field. Evolution. I've seen much of the evidence for it. I'm going to laugh at anyone proposing alternative theories until they have some real evidence. That's how strong the evidence is for evolution.

Believing in verifiable occurrences in nature that you can see with your own two eyes is the complete opposite of religion.

And really OP...you spelled "cited" as "sited."


Also, not everyone with a PhD is intelligent. There are some real stupid whackjobs with PhDs.

Greetings Swan!

I got a serious chuckle out of some your observations of the failings of 'Science'.

As scathing as your pronouncements might appear to some of the 'true believers'... You've only just scratched the surface good buddy!

I've personally been discussing (read: RANTing ) this very issue for many years... (You can pick up some of my many heretics views using the convenient search function ).

It is exciting to have someone capable of thinking outside the box join our ranks at our beloved ATS...

In that regard... Welcome Swan!

The bad news is much like your typical bell curve we are mostly populated with 'Science' talking parrots...

Hi Phage!



'Oh Einstein said...'

'Occam's razor...'

'Peer review plays an important role in... '

''We aren't ignoring your facts... They are just not concordant, therefore NOT relevant!'

'You have to follow the forum rules... Therefore NO NEW THOUGHTS! or theories! or opinions! or facts!'

'NO! The Bible can NOT possibly have ANYTHING in it that is factually correct!'

'Of course we went to the Moon! '

'It HAS to be right... It's says so on Wikipedia!'

But I digress...

I was at times past a harsh critic of mismatching sock boy... Albert Einstein...

And was squarely of the opinion that the ONLY thing he got right was the following:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

But after dealing with the 'Science' establishment is SO many delicious ways... much contemplation of the above statement... Reading some of his discussions with Velikovsky...

That he was a victim of his own celebrity... being the poster boy of 'rational thought'.

That... And the very sad fact that mainstream 'Science' simply isn't real...

The sad truth being that few people have the horsepower to figure it out for themselves...

It's just the 'intellectual sandbox' 'they' let civilians play in... mostly a waste of time, kind of like video games...

It's NOT like 'Scientists' really do anything!

His real work, like most of the guys tall enough to have the option picked up, are black projects...

The fact that NONE of their 'theories' have much to do with the REALITY we seem to occupy...

It is one seriously fabulous day today in Seattle... sitting in the 'Goldie Locks zone', in my backyard , watching these ginormous clouds floating by... thumbing their noses at Newtonian physics... and ***cough*** Gravity!

Challenge all the science!

I'll pick at Einsteinium, or their number 99 element. Did he invent it? Did it have no existence before him? No; he's their patron saint of 99.

Elements plus people names equals crazy. Its fine with frogs and fish to name them after founders, but when I zoom into 99, I don't see any Einstein anywhere. Its make believe at best and a scam at worst There goes chemistry nomenclature, bye. It's western science. It is not thought friendly; the whole thing is encrypted to this time line.

Try to remember that the science plugged to the public is all in a big model. The model just matches physical happenings very closely. Some scientists can't distinguish the model from what is truly there, and they believe too strongly in being right. Some of them have model pieces that might not actually be there outside the ten digit math complex. It's a cult not a religion.

Originally posted by Ghost375
See the problem with challenging theories of Physics is that the theories of physics can be proven with experiments. Most of the core equations and theories of Physics have much experimental evidence backing them up. So in this field, it makes perfect sense to ignore hypothesis that have no evidence backing them up.

Let's look at a different field. Evolution. I've seen much of the evidence for it. I'm going to laugh at anyone proposing alternative theories until they have some real evidence. That's how strong the evidence is for evolution.

Believing in verifiable occurrences in nature that you can see with your own two eyes is the complete opposite of religion.

And really OP...you spelled "cited" as "sited."


Also, not everyone with a PhD is intelligent. There are some real stupid whackjobs with PhDs.

>'... the theories of physics can be proven with experiments. '

Cool!

Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!



(I'll wait here patiently while you do...)

Originally posted by golemina
Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!

Popular media descriptions often say that's what collider experiments are doing, like at the LHC.

While they do create conditions closer to the big bang than we normally observe, they are still pretty far from actual big bang conditions.

reply to post by golemina

Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!

No need to duplicate it.
Observed conditions (like the CMB) support the theory and not much really contradicts it.

And like the anti-science crowd likes to point out, it is "only a theory" after all. Unfortunately that same crowd doesn't seem to get the concept. No wonder they don't like it when they don't really understand what science does.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by golemina
Duplicate the 'Big Bang'!

Popular media descriptions often say that's what collider experiments are doing, like at the LHC.

While they do create conditions closer to the big bang than we normally observe, they are still pretty far from actual big bang conditions.

Hey!

One of the KEY components of the 'Scientific Method' is REPLICATION.

'Mainstream' 'Science' says something along the lines that... the 'Universe' 'suddenly' 'exploded' into 'existence'...

You know... Out of 'NOTHINGNESS'



I say... Replicate it!

Come on guys! Anyone can play...

'Let's do the time warp again!'... Ah... 'Let's do the Big Bang again!'