Science has become a belief system.
To some extent the faith of many; even the cult to some.
This is remarkable: science started in an era when a totalitarian church used totalitarian rule to impose on the millions what they ought to believe. If not, they were burned. Life was simple; and simply a continuation of the slave era before it. Roman rulers, nouveau riche, acquired Greek Slaves for educating their young. And bought into the Greek slave system, that was part of the so-called great Greek tradition. 5% of people were free; that is: 95% of all people were slave. And I was old they did not count the women.
No wonder that some realised that it was a sorry situation, in which a few told the many what to do and believe. And although there are arguments why a uniformed society might be considered to be beneficial. The realisation that a cult based on a book drafted by anonymous writers - yet said to be holy - was an unwholesome basis for development of social civilisation. No wonder some stopped playing along. And so, science emerged.
At first science was simple. It was clear that what ‘the book’ said was not to be trusted. The people who imposed it were not to be trusted. So who knows what they had done with this ‘book’. Especially when it became clear that the sun did not rotate around Earth, a change of perspective was called for.
So some set out to study things for themselves. They did experiment - the opposite of accepting ‘facts’ in faith. They corresponded with others about their findings; so others too could find if they found the same outcome. And they then chronicled their findings: publishing what was agreed upon as ‘facts’. So others too could read and understand, experiment and know. For themselves. It was the democratisation of realisation.
Now, so many years further, we find the development has come around full circle. Again the believers uphold that what is written in the books is to be held to be real (rather than “true”). And that anything else is to be held “unscientific”.
This has gone on to the extent that scientists are now being bribed, cajoled and bought, in order to present lies as if Scientific.
People eat food that is unwholesome. They use products that are toxic.
They treat others and the world as if it is a machine. Simply because people confuse reality with a model.
It calls for a reconsideration.
- Science is not scientific.
- Science is not the purveyor of truth.
- Science is not a faith, nor a religion.
- Science is not a basis for life.
It is necessary to reconsider the role and rank of science.
It is necessary to realise that it is a language, a club, a cult, a myth; like so many others.
You can buy into it.
You can believe it as much as you like.
But science is not Scientific…
And science is not the purveyor of truth…
Science and Conscience: there is more to it than a pun play of words.
Conscience and Con Science makes the wry pun more explicit. And at once makes so clear where and how science is no longer valid. Too many are the examples of scientist promoting illth. Too often ‘science’ forgets it is an abstraction. Science as such does not exist. There are scientists. Who are working together. The result of their work is commonly known, as science. But without scientists, there is no such thing as science. Science is made by scientists. Science is made up by scientists. It is time that they, and others, start to stop believing in Science. And realise that all there is is a band, or gang, of people. Why play priest and pretend to know the truth.
To say this is tricky. Because yes, there are those with deep understanding.
Yes there are those whose insights create the quality of our culture.
But the rights of the few are not rites for the many, by which their wrongs can be ignored. It is time to make scientists responsible for science. Personally, and collectively, and get rid of con science.
The clearest example of the lack of conscience in science is the proliferation of con science.
Many scientists are prophets of profit, representatives of cults, part of large scale people manipulation, for the manufacture of money.
Their interest$ have nothing to do with science; of which they proclaim to be adherents and members.
In the past monks did their work anonymously, because the product was more important than the maker. If one person could do it, any person can do it, and all people can do it also: it is the initiation of learning. In our present era the work of scientists is presented as if independent on the views of the individual scientists: objectivity however is always based on the individual scientists’ subjective observation. The existence of ‘objective reality’ is a deception. The autonomy and infallibility of science is a deception. Science is intimately interwoven with corporate interest. This is the basis of the existence of con science.
The proponents are seen most clearly in the group of scientists who advocate the model of control: the proponents of material science, computer control, corporate funding, and political/religious bias. Many of which are implicit; and many are even not known to the people involved. By definition people are fully unaware of their own hidden motives.