I also see parallels in for example climate science.
Discussion
But this is true in all fields of science. I blame the public education system that makes us think that the science is settled (what does that even mean?). We know next to nothing about everything, but we raise ourselves into thinking we know everything. No wonder that hubris has always been a mortal sin.
Agreed, this means study harder, not capitulate to hand wavy ignorance (wE CaNT kNoW nonsense) about shit.
May be, but… what if, let’s say WHAT IF even some of the foundations are wrong? Studying harder would be a waste, wouldn’t it?
A quote from a book I'm reading:
I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I don’t think that this is entirely correct. All religions consist of two parts, a belief system and a value system. While science (or Science) fulfilled the beliefs, it has no value system, which is why the current scientific religion is such a mess.
I actually don't think religions have their own genuine value systems. They adopted already existing values simply to add legitimacy to their belief systems. There's a short play called "Kiss Hank's Ass" (or "Henryho prdel" in Czech), which illustrates this beautifully.
Religion basically says, "Believe, obey, don't ask questions, and you'll find salvation." Science, on the other hand, initially advocated precisely the opposite: "Challenge everything, falsify every hypothesis, and only assume a theory might be true after you've exhausted every possible way to disprove it, be skeptical."
However, science has mutated since then, becoming more dogmatic. You are viewed as insane if you attempt to disprove generally accepted theories. Belief is becoming more important than proof. Science is turning into a religion rather than its counterpoint.
I never said “genuine”. But if religion have to stick, it needs to combine both beliefs and values.
But what are you saying about science is not true. It was always a belief system, from the start. The history of science is fascinating and it is very similar to history of religions. Modern science since 17th century with its own god, the Holy Scientific Method, is no exception.
I think we essentially agree with each other on the first part, the need to combine beliefs and values to ensure religion is accepted.
For the second part, if I simplify your point, aren't these two positions opposite to each other? On one side, there is God saying "believe and obey," and on the other, there's the Scientific Method saying "don't believe, verify." These seem like thesis and antithesis to me. What exactly makes the Scientific Method holy in your eyes?
I don’t think that God is saying “believe and obey”. I think more like “believe what you cannot comprehend”. But the science tells “you can comprehend anything”. That seems a lot like hubris to me.
Ok, “believe what you cannot comprehend” sounds very much like religion/god. I fully agree with you.
So you think that “you can comprehend anything in an infinite time” is hubris? Of course saying that we already have comprehend everything would not only be hubris but also very naive and a total lie. Unfortunately "modern" science stopped being humble and that was the moment when it got itself on the pedestal and replaced God.
Yes, I think there might be limits to what we can actually comprehend. For example, our thinking might be limited biologically somehow.
And while I agree with you, I wouldn’t say that science replaced God, but that it is trying. But without value system it cannot succeed. Even communists had communism as a value system complementing the science.
yes
they do seem like to make claims of truth that are theory at best.
what's worse is the unthinking sheep that belive them.
real science is trying to prove yourself wrong so you can continue to advance.
what much of it is today is climate dogma and other dogma. and, god help you if you question. so how can people who want to do real science work?