It's actually not what you think. My problem is the term itself. Science has gained such a stranglehold on western knowledge in the last 200 years that now any other system of knowledge and belief (especially ones that are considerably older) are deemed childish, fraudulent and laughable. You know those crazy fundamentalist evangelical Christians that preach all madness, that they know the only true way? yea, throw a lab coat and a pocket protector on one, and you got a scientist. They are belligerent and racist. Any indigenous peoples are silly and misinformed about the world they inhabit because they don't have science. Many scientists believe that science is the only lens in which to view the world, its dogmatic, and personally i find it sad.
Last time i checked, astrology did not directly result in the depleting of our ozone layer. Alchemy had no part in the mass industrialization of Europe, leading to the genocide of native peoples and the raping of fertile lands for resources around the globe to feed this monstrous (yet invisible) giant we call science. Why? Well because the priests.... i mean scientists tell us that we need to advance our knowledge so we can understand the world and make it better! What has gotten better in the last 200 years? menial comforts, length of life, health and travel. Yet we've lost our habitat, the natural wonders of our planet, and some of its marvelous creatures as well. But guess what, we STILL all die. Don't worry though, the preachers..... i mean scientists say they can fix that. And if you try and look to stars for answers, they'll laugh until the toxic fumes of their breath blocks out everything glorious around us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You're confusing two questions - 1) how do we determine truth?, and 2) what results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Practioners and followers of astrology and phrenology and whatever generally make claims so vague they're unfalsifiable. And when they do make falsifiable claims, they ignore falsification! At best, they bring out successes explainable by chance or the placebo effect and sell them as ironclad proof of their method. Science makes no claim to make the world better, only to accumulate knowledge and understanding. Regardless, the net effect of science has been positive - living in crude shelters with no ability to manipulate the world around us isn't an admirable life. However, pseudo-science resulted in people burned at the stake for witchery, books destroyed, members of society arbitrarily excluded, and a general disregard (such as yours) for an understanding of the natural world. You seem proud to be ignorant.
ReplyDeleteSo your complaining that the most successful system of thinking we have isn't perfect.
ReplyDeleteyour the problem
First i would like to say that i am very well versed in science, especially evolutionary science, which i adhere to in my personal beliefs. However, i don't argue and try to discredit Hopi origin stories because my science is better than their 'folklore'.
ReplyDeleteYes science helps us better understand the world, but there is an extreme lack of ethics and morality in science that allows for terrible misuse. This is my problem. The 'psuedo-sciences', contain morality and ethics, leading me to the next point.
You are confusing psuedo-science with Christianity. Christianity never claims to be a science, so all the travesties you mentioned do not count. Astrology never hurt anyone. Alchemy only hurt the actual alchemists who ingested toxic minerals to learn more about their effects. Now, before you attack this point, look at Marie Curie. Both Alchemists and astrologists were the one who had their books and themselves burned by the way, especially the alchemists. They had to write in codes to protect themselves from being assulted by the church.
The proud to be ignorant statement is false. Ignorance is believing only in one view without giving any credit to the myriad ways in which people choose to enter the world. I talked about the people who act like science is the new crusade (which was my major problem in the article)and have no tolerance for anything but THEIR way. And what do you do? You call me the problem and ignorant.
Again, i'm not discrediting science. It's mostly the application by scientists (or people of science) that irks me the most. I'm sorry that you feel the need to belittle me for expressing a view point counter to your own. Maybe my blog was a little harsh, with broad generalizaions. If you would like, check out this blog i wrote on evolution, showing than i do know a little about science.
http://poeticartifacts.blogspot.com/2009/02/brief-word-on-evolution.html