Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Frank Paris wrote:
> > > As much as I like science and the scientific method, it is, when it
> > > comes down to it, just another religion, and I don't like science
> > > zealots (I'm not suggesting Roger is one, BTW).
> > >
> > That is total bunk. Scientism may be a religion, but science isn't. Saying
> > it is indicates you don't know what it is.
> >
> Spoken like someone whose religion was just challenged. I'm told if I
> really knew God I wouldn't question him either. Science is whatever the
> ruling scientist claim is true now. I suppose its actually almost all
> "bad science" since so much of it ends up changed or re-written as we go
> along. Even "laws" like those of gravity
> fall apart when the objects get small enough.
>
I have to agree with Frank on this. "Science" is the process of observing,
period. Ruling scientists have absolutely no control over anything but their
own opinion. "Laws", such as gravity, are merely observations about something
that have been attempted to be proven wrong by so many in so many different way
as to be accepted as "not able to be disproven." "Bad science" is when someone
allows their ego or opinion to be stated as "facts". Frank pointed out that
"Scientism" (or any label you care to pick for those that treat science as
religion) is different than science. In this, he is exactly correct.
Jim Snyder; Chemist, Biologist, Photographer, Programmer, "Scientist"
