Feel the need to engage more? Look and be moved. It will happen.
I have been reading rants on Facebook as if science had innate moral virtue and how horribly irresponsible it is to veer from science or the supposedly proven. I have also been reading about how horrible scientists cook the books, so to speak. It’s even considered legitimate practice.
I’ve noticed that atheists use science as a weapon to try to humiliate people they don’t agree with, instead of a tool to figure out the mysteries of the universe. In my mind, they aren’t real scientists. Then most would not be real scientists, because it’s orthodox. But yes, with the self righteous atheist you could no more get them to consider their own hypocrisy than you could a christian.
Science is constantly changing its mind.
For example, people like Neil Degrasse Tyson say that anything in the universe is possible. Real scientists aren’t skeptics. I agree.
The emotional investment in any one point of view is not justified by the very same scientific axioms they use to support their TRUTH. The way they use it the word had to be in all caps. It’s their stand in for god. I would trust the Popes judgement about science more than I would most believing atheists.
So that cooking of the books I mentioned… Have you heard of averaging? Those nice bell curves they display in their charts. Apparently, those never occur naturally, ever. They dismiss data as statistical noise if it doesn’t conform to their expectations.
Statistics is one big cooking pot.
There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics would be worse than lies. Lies always have some core of truth to them. They have to be structured around it to accomplish their purpose. Statistics seem to only need to display a nice symmetry. In physics, their testing is wildly inconsistent. This is a matter of public record more and more these days, but it was always practised. It was just swept under the rug more easily in the state of society in earlier eras.
Parapsychology research is dismissed out of hand citing methodological flaws or just simple opinion. They reject it simply because they believe it’s too absurd to accept, but the way the scientific community is shifting, and we have key elements to thank for that, well… They are really putting huge holes in their false façade of credibility. An example (and apparently it’s a pretty exhaustive test) is peer review. It’s supposed to be really important, right? Vital to scientific integrity. Apparently, the bulk of the scientific community does it very badly. 90+ percent displaying minimal if any objectivity. Many of the principles our ancestors arrived at, from long experience and intuition, are more and more frequently being vindicated by modern science.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.