It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+49 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:29 PM
It has come to light that modern day science is no longer being looked at objectively. Its achievements have clouded our minds. It has gone so far, that we are blindly trusting in it, and are following it just like people following a religion. We are happy with the toys it gives us, and all the while we are forgetting what is truly important. Questioning is the most important aspect of science, and that is a direct threat to authority, and ironically scientists and the science institutions have become authorities and churches. They have become our priests of the modern era. Whatever the priest with the biology hat says must be true about life. Whatever the priest with the physics hat says must be taught as facts.

Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth. It has become the main method of control. Governments have always kept people in line by collaborating with certain institutions. It used to be organized religion, where there basically was no difference between state and religion. Now, there is no difference between science and state. Why? Because of where the funding comes from. Shell will never fund an investigation that would make their oil obsolete because they would go out of business. In turn, if Shell goes out of business a lot of people will lose their jobs and will pay no taxes, thus, the government will not fund something that will put Shell out of business. This will impede the progress of any scientific progression regarding clean or sustainable energy.

The corporate grid is controlling everything that is being investigated and everything that is being published, no matter which branch of science you look at. The investigations done by free thinkers or independent researchers are not falsified by disproving hypotheses, but rather discarded by scorn and ridicule. And the biggest fans of science are not only supporting these actions when it's done to independent scientists, they are also taking over this attitude. A discussion with them is often no longer possible. It becomes a slander and humiliation fest, rather than an exchange of ideas and progress of our thinking.

Like written in this article;

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

for example, Novartis recently tried to block the manufacturing of a generic lifesaving drug in India that helps treat cancer patients. This is one of the consequences of the legal system that currently underpins the work of every scientist.

Scientists are at the centre of this process, yet they seem oblivious to it. Indeed, if you talk to scientists, as I do (since I am one of them), these issues almost never come up. Ask them about the nature of scientific progress, the funding decisions of their project, the forces behind it or the interests it serves, and you will get a confused look. This is a problem.

It is estimated that approximately 50% of all the scientific research in the world goes into military improvements. In other words, it goes into harming people rather than helping them, relieving them, or saving them. In turn, schools have become a propaganda where science being an authority is crammed into the minds of children in the same way that religion was being crammed into their skull. They will grow up to sustain the system that is slowly destroying them. And the more support the governments and corporations get from the people they indoctrinate, the more people will be doing that work for them, worsening the situation. They give us toys with their technology, to keep us distracted from the slavery we are already in, and to distract us from the additional chains that are being added to our minds and bodies daily. The US is in the front, all countries will follow.

The only way out of this circle of doom is to support independent scientists that question the status quo, and to question the most popular scientists. The scientists who do not conform to the status quo are probably the handful that are aware of this censorship and control. The most popular scientists are unaware that they themselves are a parasite on the masses by sustaining this system. They will tell you that the system is completely fair and that there is no manipulation going on. We have the obligation to question every authority, especially in modern day science, if we wish to see any kind of progress in our world.

We should live our lives as if we are scientists ourselves, and not fall into the religion of scientism. One will lead to the expansion of our minds and knowledge, where we can create a sustainable and peaceful future. The other will lead to narrowing of our freedoms and individuality, where we will be subject to endless work and constant depression.

The choice, is up to you...

+1 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:43 PM
Science allowed me to play a video game the whole day today and it allowed me to heat up food in 4 minutes so I didnt have to take a long break from my game....and science allowed me to listen to music while doing all this and in the perfect temperature....what god ever did that for me?

On a serious note...I understand what you are saying and I always enjoy when a scientist goes against the fact I enjoy everyone who goes against the grain...ive seen some ridiculed pretty hard for coming up with new ideas...thus destroying their career.

I forget her name but remember that female scientist who discovered life could live in an arsenic based environment or something like that...they tore her apart then I think within a few years people started saying it was possible.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:47 PM
Hows that internet working for you?


+10 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:01 PM
a reply to: Jefferton

Someone once said:

Imagine if trees would give off free wireless internet. We would be planting them everywhere. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:41 PM
Got to star and flag this thread. I do a lot of research, reading the actual research articles if they are available instead of just reading the interpretations. The articles state parameters, which is important.

Now many researchers are actually doing real science but the people who interpret their evidence often do it for an economic or prestigious reason. So this makes it easily misinterpreted based on the desire of the observer.

Science is a tool that is used by many people to gain evidence for their theories. The structuring of the research can cause evidence for their theory that is not really specifically directly applicable. You do not have to show other possible applications for the evidence that contradict your theory, just apply it the way you want to see it. Most people don't understand how this works. Sometimes misapplied evidence turns out creating something true, but rarely stands up to the scrutiny of others...unless the person or organization is renowned and nobody wants to challenge them. Now deceit does not need to be intentional to be deceit, a person may not be able to see where they have misinterpreted evidence, their desire to prove something means they may have a biast perception of the evidence. This is actually quite common, and people parrot these things without thinking of it and it becomes the basis for other research when in fact it is actually wrong. This causes a wrong path to be developed, and the branches keep growing.....sort of like all the evidence about an egg being bad for you or even coffee.

It is hard for people to say they have erred especially since so many others with crudentials have erred. People want to believe what they know is real. Now, a real scientist can say with certainty that they really know very little about anything, because everytime you learn something it requires you to know more to interpret it. Pretty soon you run into a spider web with evidence contradicting it and it is necessary to go back and ask yourself...what the hell am I researching this for anyway, it is not relevant to anything practical. The real answer is simple and you spent a lot of time trying to prove something that really was not important.

Don't blame the researchers or scientists, they are just doing what they are paid to do. Most times to give evidence for someone with a special interest related to personal gain of some sort.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:28 PM
a reply to: vasaga

This new flavor of religious fervor has penetrated into public policy.

Do We Live in a Proto-Theocracy? - Worshipping the State: How Liberalism Became Our State Religion

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:54 PM
a reply to: vasaga


Your points are, imho, very largely to thoroughly well made and accurate.

It seems to me that the realities are self-evident for anyone who looks beneath the globalist 24/7 propaganda.

Of course, the high priests, bishops and popes of The Religion of Scientism will now be flinging poo all over your thread for your daring to state the unvarnished truth.


posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:18 PM

originally posted by: vasaga
Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth.

If this were true, then no more discoveries would be made. But, new discoveries are made every day.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:28 PM
I think your point with this thread can be summed up as, "Science is progressing according what benefits corporations."

I think its not that we are serving corporations, but it is corporations that are serving us. Hence, competition in the marketplace and, "the customer is always right". So I would say science is progressing according to what benefits us, but it is through the conduit of corporations that the progression is organized. However, I do believe that corporate entities stifle progression through the self-serving interests of those in control of them. But this only slows the progression down, not stop it.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:38 PM

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: vasaga
Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth.

If this were true, then no more discoveries would be made. But, new discoveries are made every day.
If you have the time, this video will give more clarity on what I mean. We make progress, but, only in the areas that benefit certain agendas.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:37 PM

originally posted by: vasaga
If you have the time, this video will give more clarity on what I mean. We make progress, but, only in the areas that benefit certain agendas.
I've seen that video and it's full of holes and is completely unconvincing, not the least problem of which is his using round earth versus flat earth examples.

There is some difficulty getting new and controversial ideas accepted by mainstream science, but the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needed so I think this is probably the way it should be. An example that comes to mind is plate tectonics, which was rejected when it was first proposed due to insufficient evidence (though we now think it's a valid theory).

So do we argue that mainstream science was wrong to reject this "correct" theory? Some people might, but I say it's an example of how mainstream demands a sufficient amount of evidence before accepting a radical new idea. When additional evidence was presented, the idea was finally accepted.

This is the simple concept that the guy in that video fails to acknowledge, that the way to get radical theories accepted is to present more evidence for them. He's also presenting at an EU conference where EU is not even an internally consistent "theory", and most aspects are easily proven wrong by the evidence. Note this was never the case with plate tectonics...when it was rejected, it wasn't because we had evidence to reject it like we do with EU ideas, there just wasn't enough evidence to support it which is a different situation.

I think the one area that I do have some concerns about is in medicine, and especially areas impacted by big pharma, where there are huge financial incentives to do things which may not always be in the best interest of the general population. Some doctors have even admitted to whoring themselves out promoting more expensive drugs with worse side effects when they knew there were cheaper drugs with smaller side effects available. So I acknowledge you may have a point in some areas of medicine, but not in electric universe and other examples of more pure science like research at CERN.

If you take the discovery of a new 4-quark object discovered at CERN, whose agenda does that discovery serve? None that I can see except the simple advancement of raw science and enhancement of the careers of the people involved in the discovery perhaps, so you probably shouldn't over-generalize about other agendas.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 11:39 PM
I think lots of people lay claim to the scientific method and scientific language, including religious and New Age type people.

But does the scientific method really function like a religion?

Well, firstly science corrects itself and starts from the view of what can currently be observed about the present and the past.

Religion does not correct itself (although it might have different streams and interpretations), but it starts with a work of fiction and then tries to twist any observation into that.

Science knows there are limits to our current understanding, and that not all fields are qualified to speak on all topics.

Religions will pontificate their "truth" on everything from a young earth creation, to performing healing miracles, to the lie that gay people choose to be attracted to the same gender.
Even the biggest dimwit can make the most astounding and limitlessness, fantastic claims about the world through religion.
None of it requires any proof apart from anecdotes, and because they say so.

Sure, advertising has presented actors as scientists who are "gods in white coats", and science in itself is not a moral system (although the morality of some religious scripture is hardly legal by modern standards).
Even the arts or the humanities have questioned the exact sciences and privileged discourses.

Well, I'll believe science is a religion when peer reviewed articles confirm that the face of Richard Dawkins has miraculously appeared on a piece of toast.

edit on 23-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:19 AM

so you mean it's not the christians keeping me from my flying 67' vette?!!

s&f op.

i agree, science and it's followers are a religion, cult at worse.

science should just do it's job. ya? even the amish use science, if not all/any of it's toys.

take climate change. nuff said.

they are riding high on media where at a time, they were behind the scenes.

i have no problem with science, don't get me wrong. everyone likes it, right?
i wanted to be a scientist as a kid. lol! like bruce banner.

anyone who questions science is branded a religious fundy or a kook.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:35 AM
a reply to: halfoldman

peer review? you lie and the others swear to it. that peer review?

lol, and dimwits are making science claims all the time only to be refuted in a couple years!

religion is not supposed to "correct" itself.

and there are moral questions/ethics in science also. need a head transplant? clone?
please, that is a weak comparison.

150yrs of science and the secrets of the universe have been unlocked!
as soon as we get off this rock we can prove everything!! yay science!!

sorry, science doesn't like to be mocked. hey, how black are black holes?

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:39 AM
a reply to: vasaga

A little ironic since your using the benefits of science to try and belittle it!

Also where do you get the 50% of science research goes into military improvements

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:41 AM

sorry, science doesn't like to be mocked. hey, how black are black holes?

About as dim as some conspiracy believers

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:56 AM
THIS plays right in the league of studies showing that "us-americans don't believe in big bang theory as a majority" - which left me baffled.

But hey, whatever! As long as science PROGRESSES, this is fine with me!

Just don't think about literally burning people on the stake for having the "wrong ideas".

And there is a very good cause to real scientists to look down onto the autodidactic "scientists" who claim to be independent and to be free thinkers - they usually simply lack most of the basics, which are PROVEN beyond doubt and used in everday mechanics/technology.. Yet, those people claim to have found ANOTHER perpetuum mobile by using magnets and such..
Nothing against having fun "inventing" things and tinkering about - but if someone shows you that the machine can't work, you maaaaay trust him/her, if s/he is a trained engineer/mechanic/scientist. Because what you just built was tried about a hundred years ago and proven to be wrong 99 years ago. But go ahead and build another one, based on a slightly different idea.

We won't stop you.

We will tell you how and why it won't work, anyway.

If you don't want to hear that, it is not a proof of "independent" thinking. Bring your machine forth and we will take a detailed look at it.

Because: Science Wants To Learn!

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:40 AM
a reply to: tsingtao
Peer review is a process of evaluation, but it is not the last word on the matter.
Some scientific debates rage on for ages with papers deemed to have a fit methodology for publication in various journals (with various reputations).

Some scientific claims may be refuted in future (perhaps certain medicines) but the grand methodologies and theories are rarely corrected.

I wish religion would correct itself, instead of just shifting historical scape-goats.

Of course there are ethical questions about science, because science actually works.
There wouldn't be major questions about a sect that merely prays for a nuclear holocaust or an apocalypse.
I think many of them do, just because it might prove their ridiculous end-time prophesies for this generation right.
But in case prayer doesn't work, they might still invest in weapons.
So yeah, science has created effective, provable cures and treatments, and unfortunately, also methods to kill.

Whatever dates one sets to science, I hope science unlocks the "secrets of the universe" one day.
No religious mythology has done that.
Some religious people who rebelled against the tyranny of religion have advanced science, often at a great cost to themselves, but religion today is so anti-science that if it ruled it would be the end of civilization.
Get ready to follow the world-views of people who sold their daughters for cows and goats.
They won't even question or try to unlock the universe, because they think they already have it.
I don't think they have - not socially or scientifically.
So mock scientists (you disagree with) or science all you like.
Science works, and everything else is unproven, or exposed as magic tricks and mambo-jumbo.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:14 AM
a reply to: vasaga

More conspiracist ideation . . . Do you just keep posting the same topics over in different forums looking for "your audience"?

I'm sure I'd be mad at "science" too, if my pet pseudo-scientific ideas were torn to shreds or ignored due to lacking any evidence.

anyone who questions science is branded a religious fundy or a kook. - See more at:

Are you not a religious funde? Based on your posts in the Atheist thread, you believe the US is a Christian nation, creationism is real, the Inquisition is somehow false history but any history where someone exploring knowledge wasn't killed is real?, and you want your god taught to public school children.

Why the passive aggressive persecution complex (furthering the funde evidence). Why not show the courage of your convictions and say something more positive and straight forward, like . . . "Us damn fundes are the only ones that are brave enough to question science". In addition to funde and kook, one may also be labeled a Luddite or ignorant . . . Of course, no one is mocked who questions science with a sincere interest to learn . . . only those that question/challenge for no other reason than the cognitive dissonance they feel when science goes against their pet ideology.

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:16 AM

originally posted by: vasaga
It has come to light that modern day science is no longer being looked at objectively. Its achievements have clouded our minds. It has gone so far, that we are blindly trusting in it, and are following it just like people following a religion.

Because in any age of human history ,people who believe religion are far more than people who believe science.They are dumb ,and they like BS and lying ,once they find a group is more reliable,they work hard for pretend they are the reliable group people(Those mainstream scientist nowadays).This is the evolutionary history of religion.They know the planet isn't flat and this can't convince most of people ,thus create new BS.(new age,law of attention,have fun with quantum physics etc)

Basically,religious people are very common in human gene pool,true science is rare.There's a roughly method to disgusting them :ask them about religious belief.

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in