The very premise of science is to be an ever sharpening tool with which we can describe the incredible phenomena of the universe we find ourselves in. Whereas religions were, more or less, a (mostly) static means to both describe and interpret the universe (as we understood it) in a manner accessible to all members of a society.
While the comparisons of scientists to modern day clergy are very easy to make, science was never (and shouldn't be) supposed to be heightened to the level of a religious movement. What happened?
Because the importance of being empirical.
Too bad in college they present theories as facts.
>tenligheningfw the sages of the Talmud knew that nature changes (m'shaneh ha'tevah) thousands of years before Darwin, and scientist are just wrong about universe being older than 6000 years and humans evolving from lower life-forms
>>65617224
New true religion is economy and market
They would literary gas people because of muh economy, muh growth etc.
And they will.
>>65618203
When, do you think? And who will do the gassing?
>>65617224
They thinks it makes them intelligent.
Atheists tend to do this. They think despite having never graduated with a degree in science, that they are scientists by being atheistic. Atheism has become a religion itself, a very self-congratulatory one at that.
>>65617224
>Why do so many treat science as a new sort of religion?
the only people who actually do this are religious people who are butthurt about their decreasing relevance in the world
>>65617224
reddit cancer has spread the notion that reading pop science automatically makes you 'intelligent'. Jewish propaganda basically.
>>65618288
robots
>>65617224
because as much as the liberal atheist wants to be anti-religion religiousness is still a very big part of being human. with no god to worship, they instead worship almighty science, and deride religion with an utter failure to realize that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
>>65618422
Very succinct and accurate explanation.
>>65618364
This. They are also not aware of the rife corruption in science
>>65617224
It's easier to hold universal truths.
The idea of always changing your beliefs according to new findings just can't fit in the mind of the average joe.
Liberals are actually anti science too. They just like to pretend they love it because they hate Conservatives.
http://youtu.be/Cfzia93KsSY
Its called pop science. Its the same thing as retards who buy into the newest diet fad.
Real science involves asking about controls, margins of error, ability to reproduce, and other such things that are too boring for the common pleb to actually pay any attention too.
Which is why you get "proof" that some diet works when they didn't even have a control group, they used only 4 mice, and the mice are specially bred to use as much calories as possible.
Reaction to uber-religion right wing in America trying to get their religion taught as science in schools
>>65618699
This
The trendy youths etc are 'interested' in flashy and oh so awesum epic pop science, and some do become almost adherents of sorts
This does not apply to actual science
>>65617224
My fucking problem is the way progressives use and abuse science ONLY when it suits them. "HURRR science proves evolution so fuck off religious nutjob DURRRR". But as soon as you mention that it is empirical that blacks are lower on the evolutionary scale than Whites it isn't convenient for their agenda and it hurts their poor little feelings. Same if you call out trans as a mental illness. They tout science til it breaks up their little hugbox.
I think it more about understanding the world we live in through evidential means rather than trying to appear smart.
>>65618422
Really? If so then we should start supporting Jewish propaganda
Look up Mark Passio, he breaks down this question in many, many of his public talks and podcasts.
>>65617224
Pop science happened.
Humanitarianism is the 'religion' of atheists and scientists.
You know this thread just made me think how much they really do treat it like a religion, to the point they completely disregard any of it that disagrees with them.
>>65617224
>>65617224
Because scientists have been closer to god than any praying faggot ever has
>>65618364
yeah ill go with this. kinda how i originally felt when i went into env consulting, then i found out how bullshit all conclusions really are. we cant even map the bottom of an aquifer or figure out how dnapls move except by guessing based on a plume migration model that has a ton of assumptions.
outside of a lab, it's all bullshit
>>65618468
Yeah I was thinking this. Thanks.
You're mixing up science and research.
Science is the use of the scientific method in controlled experiments.
Research is whatever the academics say/publish. Most publications just say what the funding bodies want to communicate. Peer review is no test for veracity, but a test of truthiness and conformance to current research practices.
Just see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair and recall that this was before the SJW era.
>>65617224
Because it lets people feel smart without actually having to understand anything.
>Why does that work that way?
>Because science! XDDDDDD
i also recently learned that hydrogen peroxide is apparently a mutagen. saw it in a hazwoper refresher, called bullshit, then looked it up.
>>65617224
People want to feel sure about things. That's why myths and religions formed in the first place. It's a normal part of what makes us human.
So when there's a new method of discerning knowledge that comes around -- science -- people latch onto it with the same sorts of attachments and fervor that they would have for religion.
You know all those GIFs and videos that people share of "some cool SCIENCE thing"? Like chemical reactions and all that? That kind of media is little more than a fireworks show. Cool explode-y chemical reactions. The viewer doesn't actually learn why it's happening or the method of how people learned about it. It's just BOOM FLASH WOW SCIENCE to those people. It's the satisfaction, not of understanding something yourself, but knowing that other people have figured something out. In that way it very much reflects the old miracle-worker priestcraft of the past. Doesn't matter how it works, as long as the enlightened ones know it.
Similar things with the world of technology and computers. How many times have you heard a science journalist talk about how such-and-such thing is now being done by AN ALGORITHM? And then they don't even try to explain what the algorithm is, how it works, what the runtime complexity of it is. "Algorithm" just becomes a word for "magic thing that does stuff that only the tech-men understand."
Our society is built around the notion that the only way to do things is Scientifically(TM). What this usually means is that institutions will fund studies that get the results they want, then hold up their study as "Peer-Reviewed Official Science," as a holy talisman to ward off critics. You don't want to oppose my policies do you? It's unscientific!
>>65618007
Chaim Danzinger is my favorite /pol/ Jew
>>65620120
I think the world is over. There is always a war when technology allows. And it is this time.
Alternatively most people will degenerate into mindless degenerate cattle. We already are like that.
The One World Government idea seems to be great but imagine the butthurt it creates. In small countries they are people who love one option and hate the other. Imagine this for the whole world.
>>65617224
Because there is a disconnect between the boys in the lab and the boys on the podium-- heaven and earth if you will. Once a scientist gets a shred of publicity they become quite the intellectually sanctimonious little shits
>>65620994
Entire fields of modern science are rotten to the core. Social sciences can't replicate tons of what they publish. Clinical trials with negative results don't get published because they aren't seen as exciting enough to get into the high prestige journals with big impact factors.
The "I Fucking Love Science" crowd thinks that science is this single glorious method that appeared to humanity from on high. I'm a researcher with publications and I can say that it's an unavoidably human practice, with all the failings that that implies. The reason why science has worked so well so far is because certain practices and incentive structures happened to be well-enough aligned with what we wanted to get, that it worked out. For example, the push for scientists to publish and not let their knowledge die with them let us build on top of previous work much more easily. But it also creates incentives to publish or perish and fill up journals with whatever crappy p-hacked results you can manage to make sound good. It creates incentives for big universities to put out flashy demos in their science journalism press releases about how such-and-such advance is going to CHANGE EVERYTHING in 5-10 years.
>In the May 1996 issue of Lingua Franca, in the article "A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies", Sokal revealed that "Transgressing the Boundaries" was a hoax and concluded that Social Text "felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject" because of its ideological proclivities and editorial bias.[2] In their defense, the Social Text editors said they believed that "Transgressing the Boundaries" "was the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some kind of affirmation from postmodern philosophy for developments in his field" and that "its status as parody does not alter, substantially, our interest in the piece, itself, as a symptomatic document".[8] Besides criticizing his writing style, the Social Text editors accused Sokal of behaving unethically in deceiving them.[9]
This is the same shit we see when some cunt makes a false claim that she was raped, turns out she lied, admits it, and all the people who initially supported her started saying 'well at least we're having a dialogue about rape'.
Incredible.
>>65620339
It always cracks me up when the SCIENCE crowd talks about "peer reviewed science" as if that is a test of truth. Peer review is helpful as a first line of defense to keep out a lot of crackpots, but it's really little more than researchers looking through a paper to see if things make sense and that there aren't any glaring issues. There's no replication or anything.
>>65617224
If you think Science is a religion, just wait until you read about the history of mathematics. Pythagoras was literally a cult leader.
>>65621861
You talking about sacred geometry?
>>65621600
>shitposter on 4chan
>reviewer at top journals in my field
tfw I'm both of these things
You're absolutely right, btw
>>65618695
>Libs
Liberals will embrace anything that supports their position and everything else is a cis white male.
>>65622370
>>65618695
They also like to be presumed intelligent.
All those studies about the hypothalamus, about how lefties have more degrees and whatnot, pure fanwank.
>>65618007
>Saying that nature changes is the same thing as the theory of evolution
Wew lad
Science is a bit like religion. It is meant to be intersubjective but in practice it is not. Only a specialist can evaluate a work of other specialist and often he/she is not able to do that.
> those sacred text that can be understood only by a few enlightened
> those crazy weird sages who are followed by wannabe fanbois and trusted without actual understanding
> those masses (lectures), sermons (talks), retreats (schools, workshops) like you couldn't read the fucking intersubjecive paper on the archive
> those forums for fanatics
> those hermetic papers (but you openly preach intersubjectivity)
> this abuse from peers hidden before the outer world
> this silent suffering and becoming literary a recluse to satisfy the hungry beats of H-index
> those long meditations to understand subtle notions and have a special insight
There is no salvation in this religion, no forgiveness, no redemption.
Yeah, it is like religion.
