4 ms·

> "science is just another religion", This does not broaden the concept of religion, but narrows the idea of science as something sacrosanct (ironically). The

> "science is just another religion", This does not broaden the concept of religion, but narrows the idea of science as something sacrosanct (ironically). There is a belief that the scientific methodology will lead to truth. This is the same as any other religion who is steeped in ceremonial practices. The issue of how practically applicable and successful at producing models, science has been, is incidental. As a religion, the concepts fit together nicely.

Koshkin 5y ago
> There is a belief that the scientific methodology will lead to truth. Except scientists themselves do not espouse such belief. They know what they know, and also they know what they don't know; the scientific methology, too, is also based on knowledge; there is no place for "belief" in scientific research. When a scientist puts forward a hypothesis, which is not, strictly speaking, knowledge (yet), it does not mean that they "believe" in it, either; it's remains just that - a hypothesis, which gets thrown away as soon as it is disproven. One could argue that knowledge requires some kind of faith - you have to believe that you know something (while in reality you may or may not); but much of the knowlege we possess is "hard knowledge" - the kind that prevents us from taking actions that would definitely hurt us, for example; scientific knowledge is just as "hard," and so is the scientific method.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Except scientists themselves do not espouse such belief. Every religion has members who know what they know. > there is no place for "belief" in scientific research. There is a belief that the scientific method is optimal for discovering truth. How well it works, is not relevant to the fact that it's a practice. This isn't complicated or doublespeak.