A lot of people consider themselves enlightened because they rely on scientific studies to reach a conclusion about what they believe.
Read that again, and find that the active component here is belief. So how does science differ from religion? Only by carefully picking the pieces of science that isn’t religion. Tread carefully, most of it is.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
If you want to look at the good parts of science, you need to look at the scientific method. It is a method of falsification. It is not a method of proof. In science you can falsify something or create evidence. Evidence is never proof. This is important.
When people say “It is not harmful to ingest Aspartame, it has been scientifically proven” they are idiots (this is just a random example, of course). Science cannot prove that it is safe to ingest Aspartame, it can merely produce supporting evidence.
Science is, in its core, a discipline that starts out with an hypothesis, and scientists try to disprove that hypothesis. It is a process of seeking the truth thru elimination. The problem with science is that there are an infinite number of possibilities that need to be eliminated.
There is scientific evidence that we are all living on a hologram. That nothing you experience is real. And really, how would you know?
Take a brief look at the coarse steps in the scientific method:
- You create a hypothesis (aka a thesis)
- You do your best to disprove it
- If you can disprove it, you have probably successfully created an antithesis. Pat yourself on the back.
- If you can make your original thesis align better with the real world, you have made a synthesis
This means that you at no point in time prove anything, you just make your ideas align better with the real world.
WAIT, you say. IT SAID IT WAS SCIENTIFICIALLY PROVEN TO INCREASE MY PENIS LENGTH!
They are lying to you. You cannot ever prove anything scientifically, you can only produce massive amounts of supporting evidence. This is a fact.
The problem with science arises when this happens:
- A scientist creates a thesis. This is basically just a fancy word for “I think this might be true”
- The said scientist does an experiment (as he/she should), with the intention of disproving said thesis
- This experiment produces data (this is good)
- This data is interpreted (this is sometimes good, sometimes, bad, but at this point WE ARE OUTSIDE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
- The interpretation of the data is consumed by the masses (followers of Tjomlid and your typical sheep herd)
This is a catastrophe, because more often than not, BELIEF is introduced with interpretation. If you are unsure about this, look up things like CONFIRMATION BIAS, THE DECLINE EFFECT. Any interpretation of data introduces personal belief. My personal pet peeve in this area is Mehrabian’s experiment on communication. Look it up, it is absolutely ridiculous, and it is cited EVERYWHERE.
So how does science differ itself from, well, religion?
If you stick to creating experiments and producing data, it has no overlap what so ever. The second you start interpreting data, it is the same thing.
INTERPRETATION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA IS RELIGION.
Did you know that MATH isn’t SCIENCE?
By its nature, math can never be science, because it exists in a created vacuum. Look it up. Math is based on what is called axioms. They are “given truths”. 0 doesn’t exist in nature, you can’t point to 0. LOOK, HERE IS NOTHING. This isn’t something I’m making up, math really isn’t science. Rather, it is a discipline that helps science by providing a method of reasoning about something. It happens (almost by accident, it seems) to mirror real life extremely well.
In math, you can have proofs. Because it isn’t science.
Does this mean science is bad? Absolutely not. This is an ideal trajectory for scientists:
- A scientist does an experiment (as he/she should)
- This experiment produces data (this is good)
- This data is interpreted (religion)
- It is used to create physical things in the real world, that everyone can benefit from (creation)
See, from religion comes CREATION. The light bulb came from RELIGIOUS BELIEF in data that wasn’t proven.
This is the perfect marriage between religion and science. You have to be a little religious to create things from a dataset that cannot ever be proven. It is insanity. It is beautiful.
The problem is, however, that most people that consider themself enlightened by science marry themselves to the interpretation of the data. Most of them never actually look at the actual data, they only skim interpretations of it. This is THE SAME as religion. This is making science a religion (or, more precisely, making interpretation of scientific data a religion).
These are RELIGIOUS PEOPLE:
- I am better than you, because I know the truth (scientific interpretation, Jesus, Mohammed, Hulk Hogan, Buddha)
- My truth isn’t subjective, it is objective
- My truth doesn’t need actual proof as my experience of it makes it true
Let’s go back 100 years. What was true, in the scientific eye, then?
Stupidly enough, a lot of the things that were true 100 years ago have become untrue today. And wrongfully so. Apparently, today it is unhealthy to eat fat. It wasn’t 100 years ago. Fat is supremely good for you (read the scientific DATA, not its interpretations, which are wildly religious).
Just take a step back and imagine what was accepted in the mainstream because of scientific interpretation 100 years ago. Is it TRUE? Was it ever TRUE?
If you let your experience of reality be dictated by scientific interpretation you are a fool.
So how do you stop yourself from becoming a religious bigot?
- Look at the data
- Look at interpretations and believe in them only if it is your pure intention to capture more data and/or create something that becomes real
- Stop believing in interpretations, because it makes you an idiot
- Look at the data again, suspiciously. You are here to falsify, not to worship.
And that, my friend, is why your probably shouldn’t ingest Aspartame.