The Modern Church of Science

Science today is what the Church was to medieval Europe; prove me wrong.

historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 17 Mar 2015. 8 Jan 2022

In 1500 the Roman Catholic Church was all powerful in western Europe. There was no legal alternative. The Catholic Church jealously guarded its position and anybody who was deemed to have gone against the Catholic Church was labelled a heretic and burnt at the stake. The Catholic Church did not tolerate any deviance from its teachings as any appearance of ‘going soft’ might have been interpreted as a sign of weakness which would be exploited.

The Church of Science dominates our lives today. Anyone questioning its doctrine is considered a heretic and shunned/excluded from society. It has its own set of morals and requires faith and suspension of disbelief from its followers.

It offers indulgences in the form of an mrna baptism.
Only the priests of Science can bring you to health.

Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church.

Lay people are discouraged from interpreting the bible on their own; leave this to the clergy:
www.cnn.com...

The Church of Science is glutted with wealth;

This relationship between people and church was essentially based on money – hence the huge wealth of the Catholic Church. Rich families could buy high positions for their sons in the Catholic Church and this satisfied their belief that they would go to heaven and attain salvation.

The Church of Science prevents other faiths from celebrating holy days:
www.wvnstv.com...

Do you worship at the altar of Science?

a reply to: zosimov

You are correct.

It is a very dangerous thing to worship and believe 100% and say science has the definitive answer to all our issues.

Why?

Well I had an office in the science department of a prestigious University and I also edited college textbooks.

With both of these experiences I can tell you the horrible truth about scientific studies, even peer reviewed and journal published studies.

What happens OFTEN is that scientists make a discovery or find something etc.

They do research.

I also taught research methods in Univ.

They use statistics to prove and find exactly what they wanted to find. It can easily be done with modern statistical methods, manipulating statistics is simple to get the results you want to get, even if they are not the true results.

They send the research for peer review. To friends in the scientific community. With the underlying agreement, you say my research is good and I'll peer review your research and say it is good.

This happens ALL THE TIME, ask any reputable scientist.

It happened often with the textbooks I edited.

It happened often with my colleagues in the offices next door to me in the prestigious University science building.

That is why what is peer reviewed and published scientific truth today, is disproved tomorrow.

You can not trust a new scientific find because this "you pat my back, I'll pat yours" mentality is so ingrained in the scientific community.

You have to wait years for people to replicate the research over and over who are trying to disprove the initial finding.

That is why yesterday eggs were bad for you and today they are good for you. Yesterday coffee was mostly bad for you and today it is mostly good for you. I could go on and on. These examples are funny and harmless - but many are deadly.

To worship science, which liberals and progressives do is dangerous because of the habits ingrained in the scientific community and can be deadly.

It is a false God, one that manipulates people to enrich or give prestige to the researcher.

Bad science happens OFTEN because of publish or perish. Scientists who don't publish, and they won't publish if the results are not what they wanted, are often fired, lose their jobs. So getting "tit for tat" peer review and manipulating statistics to say what they want it to say is essential to their lives.

a reply to: The2Billies

Excellent points; thank you for taking the time to type all that out!

a reply to: zosimov
I agree, but I'm not a member of either 'church'.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: zosimov

My Anthony candle is better than your Anthony candle

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But does yours promise "covid facts and truths" like mine?

Join us

a reply to: zosimov

No, it just tells you to have fun.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fun is strongly frowned upon in the Church of Science.

www.ndtv.com...

A group of influencers who filmed themselves drinking, smoking and partying on a chartered flight from Canada to Mexico have earned the Internet's ire. The maskless influencers were met with outrage for flouting Covid rules amid rising cases of the Omicron variant. After footage of the influencers went viral on social media, several airlines refused to fly them back from Cancun - and adding insult to injury, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau called them "idiots" in a press conference on Wednesday, reports USA Today.

a reply to: zosimov
I know, you know, that I know, that you know this... but here it is my opinion anyways *hug*

It's because science can not be questioned once chosen figure heads have announced their truth. We've come from the fake-news area to "fact"-"checking" and the 4 hyphens are placed exactly for a reason... To politicians having the guts to call dips on authority what is correct science and what not.

Everyone else get's silenced, ridiculed and sometimes threatened and get their career dismantled for speaking out. There are hundreds of thousands of other real scientist worldwide with years of experience arguing against Fauci and other similar knobheads.

When the first news came out about reinfection after vaccination it was dismissed, and laughed at.

Here are some questions I have in my quiver, I will fire them in the air now, because I can smell the trolls arriving and we'll see where they land.

-What about being asymptomatic?
-What about vaccine efficiency, many called it out and now it's slowly accepted by the politial science dictatorship?
-What about the distance ruling completely useless, because the CDC was afraid to tell the real numbers. That's like 20m. People would have freaked out.
-These jokes of masks for a deadly virus I literally ROFL on this one. Yeah droplets we know *yawn*.

How often have we "nut cases" been ridiculed for calling these above things out? Just to discover that a few months and tactics and switcheroo's later, suddenly they creep onto the topic but use it for their agenda again?

Does anyone have a tool that is NOT cloud based, a good data analysis tool? Throw everything at me I am autodidactic and will figure it out myself. And I will find a way to visualize all the tactics and intervals I have seen over time. Repeating like clockwork all over the world in patterns.

Even the thought structures and psychology behind it repeats and follows a set of rules.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

hugs to you TDDA!

Great observations and questions. It is a set up now so that if you question the ever-changing and increasingly invasive mandates that you're a backwoods illiterate.
Question saint fauchi and question the institution.

(I thought about the comparison between masks and relics but it's an imperfect analogy imo_

Thanks for taking the time to type that (twice)

a reply to: zosimov

On your knees plebes, before the ' High-Priests™ ' of ' Scientism™ ', in their shimmering ' WhiteCoats™ ' !!

Their every utterance is pure ' Scientificish™ ' ' Truth™ ' !!

Those whom do not believe, shall be labeled ' Radical-Extremists™ ', ' Misogynistic-Racists™ ', and ' Anti-Vaxxers™ ' !!

You don't want to one of those, do you ?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: zosimov

My Anthony candle is better than your Anthony candle

a reply to: Nothin

And don't forget to kiss the ring of Pope Fauci: The Representative of Science on Earth

a reply to: zosimov
I think you're missing a more recent development, in that "science" has become such a religious authority that it now attracts the hostility of those who rebel against authority. Hence the popularity of the more "anti-science" causes like "flat earth" and "anti-vax". So I suggest that science is going to be replaced in turn by anti-rational belief systems, which will be even more hostile to Christianity.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: zosimov
I think you're missing a more recent development, in that "science" has become such a religious authority that it now attracts the hostility of those who rebel against authority. Hence the popularity of the more "anti-science" causes like "flat earth" and "anti-vax". So I suggest that science is going to be replaced in turn by anti-rational belief systems, which will be even more hostile to Christianity.

In my opinion, "flat earthers" and "anti-vax" (the way that term is applied today) don't belong in the same thought process; otherwise, I agree and think this is an astute point!

Got this one from a fellow ats-er

Scientism isn't science. Done, that was quick.

Ok, I'll elaborate a bit on the word "science", which comes from the Latin scientia, which means "knowledge" (also still a synonym for "science"). Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities (all synonyms) acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

There is nothing wrong with science/knowledge. The problem is that the adherents of scientism tend to fall victim to those promoting unverified philosophies under the marketinglabel "science". Also note what wikipedia mentions concerning the origin of the word "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

The real reason why they switched from the term "natural philosopher" to "scientist" (and from "natural philosophy" to "science") is because the term "philosopher" lost all marketingvalue as more and more unverified philosophies were refuted by what Isaac Newton referred to as "experimental philosophy" (and often by Newton himself) and later became known as "modern science". Which used this method to discover and acquire new knowledge/science about realities (pardon the redundancy in that expression):

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

If you want to practice telling the difference between science and philosophy, or fact and fiction (or interpretation, or opinion, or speculation, or the marketing, propagandizing of interpretations, opinions, speculations, stories and unverified philosophies):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories (playlist)

That playlist contains the following presentation from Michael Behe,who discusses the subject of inductive reasoning in comparison to evolutionary just-so stories (actually, they might as well be called maybe-so stories the way they are presented in holy "peer reviewed" Scripture) after 30:08:

More info:

Fraud in Science​—It Makes the Headlines (Awake!—1990) (note that the majority of these headlines are concerning the medical sector)
Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase
Fraud in Science​—A Greater Fraud (the subject here concerns evolutionary philosophies)
Fraud in Science​—The Greatest Fraud of All

Evolutionists say: ‘Evolution is a fact; God is a myth.’ They have proof for neither, but prejudice needs no proof.

PRIVATE PROPERTY. Keep Out. This Means You, God! Evolutionists post the subject of biology and tell God to stay out of it. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution,’ they say. Which also says, in effect: ‘Scientists who do not believe are incompetent; they lack our expertise.’ As for God, they say he has no place in scientific thinking. Moreover, even his existence is not provable.

This glib dismissal of God is the greatest fraud of all.

The New Biology, by Robert Augros and George Stanciu, highlights on page 188 some of the statements of prominent scientists who brush God aside: “The common opinion holds that Darwin rid biology of the need for God once and for all. Eldredge says, Darwin ‘taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.’ Julian Huxley said: ‘Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as a creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.’ Jacob writes: ‘The idea that each species was separately designed by a Creator, was demolished by Darwin.’ And Simpson writes of the origin of the first organism: ‘There is, at any rate, no reason to postulate a miracle. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the origin of the new processes of reproduction and mutation was anything but materialistic.’”

‘But does not this leave life on earth without a Creator-​Designer?’ you ask. ‘None needed,’ evolutionists answer. ‘It is in the lap of chance. Blind chance is the designer. We call it Natural Selection.’

But the more we learn, the more design we see. The input of intelligence and wisdom is staggering. Is it not too much for blind, unthinking, brainless chance to handle? Consider just a few of the hundreds of devices in nature that reflect creative wisdom​—which human inventors have frequently copied.

The aerodynamics of the wings of birds preceded by millenniums the inferior design found in the wings of planes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to maintain buoyancy at whatever depth they swim, much more efficiently than modern submarines do. The octopus and the squid are masters of jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and seabirds have their own built-​in “desalination plants” that enable them to drink seawater. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward and in reverse.

By ingeniously designed nests and by their use of water, termites air-​condition their homes. Insects, microscopic plants, fish, and trees use their own form of “antifreeze.” Small fractions of degrees of temperature change are sensed by the built-​in thermometers of some snakes, mosquitoes, mallee birds, and brush turkeys. Hornets, wasps, and yellow jackets make paper. Sponges, fungi, bacteria, glowworms, insects, fish​—all produce cold light, often in color. Many migrating birds apparently have in their heads compasses, maps, and biological clocks. Water beetles and spiders use scuba gear and diving bells.*​—See illustrations on page 15.

To come up with all this design and instinctive wisdom demands an intelligence far beyond man’s. (Proverbs 30:24) But some of the most amazing examples are to be found in the world of the infinitely small​—where evolutionists hoped to see the simple beginning of life to start evolution on its upward climb to the obviously complex designs everywhere—​including us. Simple beginning? No such thing! Consider the complexities reflecting intelligent design in the tiniest cells.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

I hope you know what I meant. I assumed everyone reading would know that by "science," I meant $cience as claimed by Anthony "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science" Fauci.

Nice and interesting write up, nonetheless!

a reply to: zosimov
Yes I knew, just wanted to emphasize that first point in my comment. And encourage everyone to stop going along with those philosophers who promote their unverified philosophies under the marketinglabel "science" and also end up referring to it as "science".

Also, after my initial point, I wanted to make my comment a bit longer and informative, I have no preference for short comments most of the time (such as when there's more to say about it).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: zosimov
And encourage everyone to stop going along with those philosophers who promote their unverified philosophies under the marketinglabel "science" and also end up referring to it as "science".

Well then we have the same goal in this case

I found something very amusing about those who are claiming "science" as a monolithic thing and as their own (Fauci being a prime example; and the media "clergy" which tries to bludgeon us with "science" another) most likely being those most critical of the religious authority of the medieval Roman Catholic Church (for example); hence this OP.

OOPS; something went awry.