slug.com slug.com

2 3

LINK Scientific "Proof" is a Myth: The Limitations of Science and the Medical Paradigm

Is science a religion?

A religion is a set of beliefs that is passionately held by a group of people that is reflected in a world view and in expected beliefs and actions. These beliefs are often taken by faith.
Belief in science is an act of faith and is, in itself, a choice made subjectively and personally, not scientifically.
Scientific proof is not really proof at all.Scientists can never know for a certainty that the laws seemingly in effect today were always so or that they will be in effect at all future times.
Neither can they know that their laws, as observed to date, within the limits of current observations, will continue to be upheld by future observations.
There is no such thing as "settled science" in science. It all has to be taken on faith.

Since absolute proof in the physical universe would require knowledge of every cubic centimeter of matter, space and energy, and since humans have no such knowledge of their universe (as mathematicians do of theirs)—absolute proofs of physical phenomena are impossible for human scientists.
If you think about it, comprehension of every speck of matter and every corner of space in the created universe is tantamount to the definitions for “omnipresence” and “omniscience”—neither of which are human attributes.I But, they are attributes of the Christian and Jewish, and yes, even the God of Islam.
(emphasis is mine as are some sentences)

turnerjolene48 7 Feb 9
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

"Lower case" science is just an activity; a very useful one, when approached correctly. But, as an activity of men, it is also prone to both error and corruption.
Science, on the other hand, has definitely become a part of secular religions like Progressivism.
It is the omniscient source of unquestionable Truth; the deity of Atheists, and a False Prophet for many a misled theist.

Ironically, it always seems to be the Science-worshipers who understand science the least.
They follow it blindly, as a matter of Faith. Their priests just wear lab coats instead of robes, that's all.

The most important part of any scientific "proof", is first laying out the Assumptions upon which it relies, and an exploration of any other known, suspected... or even unknown Limitations of the study, to whatever extent they can be described.
THEN... and only then, can the work be taken seriously and assessed within that context.
It may be the most precisely-repeatable bulletproof theory you've ever read. But the moment one of those Assumptions is shown to be False, it's disproved.
Not only is it disproved, but every scientific "fact" that was using this theory as an Assumption, is now falsified as well, and every one that was using that one is too... etc., etc., etc.
At the very foundation of that hierarchy are Axioms. Absolute Truths upon which all others are constructed.
In the logical systems, as the author points out, these Axioms are rock-solid.
They are, because their respective implications are what define them in the first place.
x + y equals the sum of x and y every single time... because that's what "+" means. It was designed to do exactly that, and only that. And we know that, because we designed it; and we proceeded to build on that with increasingly complex Laws that are just as solid, because their foundation is solid.
e.g., (5 x 3) is shorthand for [5 + 5 + 5]. They come out the same. Predictably. Repeatably. Every time.

Any scientific attempt to reveal a natural Truth, on the other hand, does not have that solid foundation to build on. Because we didn't design it.
Sure... we've got some "scientific facts" that we have great confidence in... at the moment.
We even have some that we might call axiomatic, primarily because we either consider them "self-evident", or just because basically everybody agrees. The principle of causality seems like a good candidate:
If something happened, then something caused it to happen.
But, as the author describes, none of them are actually provable. So... obviously... they'll never be proved.
And if your assumptions can't be proved, then your theory can't be proved.

We've made great progress, of course, within the context of what we think we "know" so far. Repeatability is validation... until it's not.
But like the author mentions; that context itself, the sum of all scientific "knowledge" so far, is a comically infinitesimal subset of what there likely is to know.
We're only even aware of about 4% of the physical universe, by our own estimation. The rest we lump into the placeholder categories of Dark Energy and Dark Matter to be figured out later sometime.
And we don't even understand how that familiar 4% works... we're just aware of it that's all.
Take gravity for example. We can describe with great precision the effect that gravity has on massive objects. But... what is gravity? How does it do that?
¯\(ツ)
And that's just the physical world. The metaphysical world is anywhere from nonexistent to infinitely more complex than the physical world. Again, we don't know.
¯\(ツ)
But consider this: observational science is limited, necessarily, to that which we can observe.
Right?
ok. So... We happen to have evolved a handful of senses over the millennia for the purposes of gathering berries, avoiding snakes, and getting laid. That set of "tools" is what we are now trying to use to decipher the universe.
It is, in my humble opinion... stupid; to suspect that those five mundane senses that we almost-randomly developed, along with some man-made detectors, just happen to be a sufficient set of observational tools to detect all the different modes of interactive phenomena operating within the universe.
Not likely. Which suggests the likelihood that there exists a significant metaphysical world and the myriad unknown laws that govern its "behavior" as well; by which we are presumably just as predictably affected.

Now that 4%, that "modern science" has jotted down in it's collective notebook so far, is looking a lot more like a fraction of 1% if not infinitely smaller still, of "what there is to know..."

But don't we just get all excited, self-righteous and smug about how smart we are...? 😂

0

One step removed... Epidemiological studies never result in causal conclusions they only show correlation. They require faith to make sweeping causal connections. I know this is a sideways observation, but it speaks to your title.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:183987
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.