"Even in cience, even cientifics are able to take a useful and teorically neutral tool and make it into a "religion"." Outside of parapsychology, cold fusion,

"Even in cience, even cientifics are able to take a useful and teorically neutral tool and make it into a "religion"." Outside of parapsychology, cold fusion, and free energy devices, how are you stating that this occurs as a regular practice? I criticize scientists from within the framework of poor evidence, biases, systemic issues, but calling it a "religion" misses the point. Personal biases don't make a religion. Watered down pop-science isn't a religion either.