Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: TzarChasm

Excellent point.

originally posted by: Greggers
One of the mods around here has a line in his sig that reads something like "Do not attempt to teach those who refuse to learn." I would suggest that trying to teach the OP and others in this thread that science is NOT LIKE A RELIGION is a waste of time.

It is very clear that, as I originally suggested, the motivation for this comparison is being made by people who have been involved in highly personal scrapes with the pro-science crowd about ideologies that they hold very dear, and thus this thread is basically an overly complicated--but just as nonsensical--attempt to flip the bird at the opposition.

So, if you want to stop being flipped off, you probably should stop replying. No meaningful dialog is possible here.

Talk about "Wet birds fly at night."

Bumping because this is the most sensible post in the whole thread.

Now I really am out. Its too nice out to spend my whole day nibbling on troll bait.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?

About about their Credo?

Anyone testifying how glad they are to be Scientismatics?

We keep seeing this claim made here, about the "religion" of scientism ... but not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

This is a false claim.

(Dispute with actual evidence.)

The first rule of the Church of Scientism is that you cannot talk about the Church of Scientism.

More seriously:
Scientism - Wikipedia.
What is Scientism? - American Association for the Advancement of Science
Scientism - Rational Wiki
Scientism - The Basics of Philosophy

Apparently, it's a thing.

At long last..THANK YOU for the multiple and enlightening definitions of "Scientism"..

The word has been tossed about on this thread as if it is common knowledge...

From Wiki:
Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

So all of this BS is premised on false binary choice?
It is Science vs. all spirituality, humanity, religion et al. in a proposed cage match?

What utter nonsense as a premise. Our spirituality and science are not mutually exclusive and if you ever read the bio's of Einstein, Tesla et al. you would know that the vast majority of scientists think deeply about their spirituality and what it means to be human. Most great scientists are driven by an innate desire to understand "creation" by it's mechanisms and physical laws.

Never confuse the fact that most scientists don't take a 2000 year old book written by people as "truth" with the idea that they do not explore the universe from a very spiritual and human place, it is often just that that drives them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: chr0naut
But science really is vastly different than faith.

Agreed.

/thread

So what that means is that People dont need to have faith in science. That dont add up. All you People who dont understand science must have faith in science sinse you claim you do understand it.

Chr0naut stated that faith and science are vastly different. I agreed, and humorously used the "/thread" marker as that counters the OP's contention succinctly and completely.

For the record though, "having faith" in science is not required. Science speaks from observable, reproducible evidence.

Unless you are using "faith" when you mean confidence. Is that what you mean?

Signed, One of the People

What Science is, is one thing. How People perceive it is anothter. It is the exact same thing With religion.

People who dont understand science or what they read within science, or images or videos they display, have no ground to state it is objective. Only if you can do the tests and observations by Your selves would you have the grounds to state it is abjective. Its just like asking a beliver in God to ask God to show him self.

Are you arguing that what things actually are is limited what SOME people perceive (or misperceive) them to be?

That's merely a slight variation on the fallacious "argument from ignorance" coupled with a pallid "argument from authority."

In short, neither are rationally meaningful, both are absurd.

Only People can have faith. Science can not have faith, science is a Field of study conducted by people. Odd that this is so hard to comprihend.

A lot of science, if not all is confidential and have to be approved for Public view.

For instance: Moste Americans have the beleif/faith that their military techonlogy is about 50 years a head of what is publicly known. This kind of patriotism is 100% faith. There is not one of you who can prove that the US military is 50 years a head of present time in military Technology.

Pilots have to have faith in their jet, bomber and so on. They must have faith in the Technology... and the science behind it. If not you will have some very unpredictable pilots.

The western Public is made 100% sure that the F-22 will match anything in the air through.... propaganda supported by science behind the project.

Science is a market and trade. And is built on Peoples faith in science.

a reply to: BO XIAN

OTHER LINKS RELATED TO SCIENCE AS A RELIGION:
.
SCIENCE AS A BELIEF SYSTEM:
.
spaz.ca...
.
= = =
C.S. Lewis Foresaw Rise of Scientism as Religion Today, Says Scholar at Apologetics Conference
.
www.christianpost.com...
.
= = = =
.
WHAT IS SCIENTISM?
.
www.aaas.org...
.
= = =
CAN SCIENCE BE A RELIGION?
.
www.youtube.com...
.
= = =
THE RELIGION OF MODERN SCIENCE:
.
www.ifew.com...
.
= = =
.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: BO XIAN

Let's address this directly.

You claim that science is a religion.

Quote someone saying that they worship science as a god.

Now find a group of people that identify themselves as worshippers of science.

When you can do either of those things, you approach a rational proof of your claims.

In their absence, the irrationality of your false equivalency is blatant and glaring.

He won't do it. He's been talking in gibberish and generalities this whole thread and it's obvious that he's not interested in backing anything up, or proving anything. He's just here to bash science. It's funny how he cannot give a specific example of anything related to this. He's just upset about politics and takes it out on science.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BO XIAN

Do some scientists worship their science? ABSOLUTELY . . . Often to the neglect of their spouses, children and other social duties and relationships.

Do some scientists love their science? ABSOLUTELY . . . Often MORE THAN they love their spouse, their children and other people and objects in their lives.

Are some scientists MORE COMMITTED to their science than they are to their spouses, children and other people and objects in their lives? ABSOLUTELY!

Are some scientists MORE IN AWE of their science than they are of anything else in their lives? ABSOLUTELY!

Could you provide specific examples?

A side note: I know many scientists who are devout followers of assorted religions. They would be offended by your false equivalency.

I'm willing to bet that no examples will be provided and his response will be mostly gibberish and generalizations that don't have anything to do with science whatsoever. Although he sure loves the word "absolutely".

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

Do you have specific examples of what you are talking about? Everybody seems to be dodging this question.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

If you don't like being wrong, then stop being wrong.

So anyone who disagrees with scientific theory is wrong? yet again, this is the problem. Note how I haven't even bashed any particular theories, just their zealous adherents - from which I get responses such as "you're scientifically illiterate!", Only because I suggest that the mainstream theoretical framework shouldn't be considered fact.

How can you defend those who tout theory as fact? It is inherently dishonest and the antithesis to science. That is the scientism philosophy that we are trying to dismantle.

Bro, you deny every single possible piece of scientific evidence that conflicts with your religion without even addressing it. You ARE scientifically illiterate. Funny how you agree science works when it comes to technology, computers, internet, automobiles, planes, space travel, refrigeration, harnessing electricity etc, but specifically deny whatever goes against your religion. That is called cherry picking, and is not what the OP is talking about. And you still bring up the same common misunderstandings that you did 2 years ago, which is sad. Theories are based on facts, and that has been explained to you hundreds of times now but you continue on and pretend it never happened.

The Op is claiming that the politicians and corporations are abusing the scientific method for what can be perceived as sinister or corrupt. The truth is, in a capitalistic society, money comes first. If you don't like science being pushed in certain directions or forcing certain fields to have more funding than others, you need to focus on the people that do these things and look at what they have to gain or lose. 99% of the time it's money or power. That's not a fault of science, it's the society we live in.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
Are you smoking crack?

Nice. Open with a personal insult

All I did was point out that it is folly to equate time as it is currently understood with current measurements of the earth revolving around the sun... Since the difference in opinion stems from doing just that, you can't trust that time has been constant or that radiometric dating means that a certain number of actual years (the number of times the earth has traveled around the sun) have occurred within that time.

How is that a folly? Because it assumes the earth rotated around the sun for 4 billion years, when we can measure stuff like that in sedimentary layers? What exactly are you saying here? Time hasn't been constant? If you believe this you need evidence that the decay of isotopes can change or that our revolution around the sun has changed. Like I said, it's blind denial. Are you reading the research papers on radiometric dating? I doubt it. Saying, "you don't know that time has been constant" is a terrible argument. Do you know something we don't know?

Really on Lucy, and what did they base that all of these samples were australopithecus on? You can't use contrived evidence to support contrived evidence, to support contrived theories...lol

LMAO, they found 2 other skulls from other specimens that were mostly intact. What on earth are you talking about? It's not just about Lucy either, there are 22+ other species of human ancestors that have been found as well. You have to deny all of that blindly and dismiss it as fake.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how they can determine an ENTIRE creature from some molars and a partial jaw bone....

Because they can analyze the jaw bone and compare it to other species with similar jawbones and can match it almost exactly to their ancestor. Again, I don't know why you are bringing up bigfoot's so called ancestor in a conversation about Lucy and the validity of science. I haven't done much research on gigantopithecus.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The whole list is complete nonsense.

10. Science does not claim anything, it's a method. It cannot "think" humans are special, a statement of opinion. Yes we are the most intelligent species on the planet, that doesn't make us special nor does it make us the pinnacle of evolution. It's blanket generalizations like this that make your position collapse.

9. Science does not cast out people that go against the norm. Only those that abuse the scientific method and generate fake conclusions or do dishonest work. For example, if somebody gets caught posting a paper in a peer reviewed journal that hasn't been reviewed, they get discredited. It's a good thing.

8. LMAO at revering saints. There are no saints. People remember Einstein, Darwin and other brilliant minds of the past that made scientific contributions that greatly improved our knowledge. They aren't worshiped, they are recognized, just as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln who also made big contributions to society.

7. Science does not make up stories. Religion does. Science just follows evidence. Sorry you hate this so much.

6. Another laughable one with the code of ethics. The code is only that you follow the scientific method. Science is not a person, it doesn't follow ethics. That is what the humans who use it must choose, for example nuclear energy and nuclear bombs.

5. Priesthood is ridiculously absurd. You are just listing things from a propaganda site, literally anybody could write that list completely out of their rear end. There are no priests, there are people that have made numerous contributions to discovery and understanding. This is hilarious.

4. Science has no dogmas. Scientific research papers cite experiments and their results. Calling that dogma only proves you have no clue what science actually is.

3. Science does not bend. Once again, you bring up corporate greed and government projects to claim science bends. That is laughable. It doesn't bend. Either the experiments prove something or they don't. There is no middle ground where they can force something to work without a legitimate method to do so.

2. More laughable hogwash. MOST science is backed by peer reviewed research papers which anybody can read or test for themselves. Unfounded! I almost lost my coffee on that one.

1. Science does not require faith. It requires research that has been tested and reviewed. Once again you just listing religious concepts that have no connection to any type of science.

It's obvious that this thread is purely just a means to bash science blindly to help validate your personal belief system to yourself. These aren't even reasons, they are just drivel that doesn't apply.

originally posted by: spy66
Pilots have to have faith in their jet, bomber and so on. They must have faith in the Technology... and the science behind it. If not you will have some very unpredictable pilots.

That's a different kind of faith. There are multiple definitions for the word. One is trust, the other is belief in what cannot be proven (religious faith). You TRUST the technology you use because it has been developed and tested over time by experts using the scientific method. That isn't blind belief. It's like trusting your dentist to fix your tooth. You don't have faith that your dentist exists. You know this and you know his credentials and history of his practice so you can trust him (or have faith that he will help you). Please don't equate religious faith to trust. They aren't the same.

Here is a side by side by side comparison of what science sounds like and what religion sounds like. Let's see if you can spot the differences.

a reply to: Barcs

REALLY? How do you measure the earth going around the sun in sedimentary layers... I'm starting to understand.. You just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand...

That's not meant to be an attack on you either... I just literally think that you are incapable of visualizing and understanding the implications of what I described...

LOL

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

I really think it is you who doesn't understand....embarrassing this thread is.
A load of religious people attempting to Diss the scientific method.
Oh and op why don't you tell us about the critters you blabber on about it shows how crazy you actually are.

a reply to: BO XIAN

This is one more point I would like to make. There is something else I have been looking into. This is an entity that truly holds our strings but in a more benevolent manner then these tyrranical humans have no idea they are the ones being used. It would be easier to let the NWO fools think their plans are going somewhere then to outright squash them like the damned insects they are. Think about it, there would be a GIANT power gap in the shadow governemnt. A gap any lunatic could actually replace unless we formally accept these groups exist. something we won't do. So it's better to let them and the rest of society think they are winning. It's attaching a person to a pole in the middle of the desert and an unknown force is silently pulling you back while shifting the surroundings of the desert. You think you're getting farther...but in fact you're just on a leash who's nature is constantly changing. giving these NWO puppeters the laughable sentiment they are getting closer.

The true NWO is coming...and they aren't a part of it. that's where it gets to my conspiracy territory. If you have seen my thread on '3rd' but basically it's easier for her to make us think we're constantly in crisis. Because the moment humans start feeling safe they start MAKING problems. It's the next best thing to a utopia..create a world where all the problems aren't real but they look and feel real. So as far as we are concerned...it's real.

This is my 'religion' spreading awareness of this entity to anyone who will listen. The lcd won't believe she exists. Because after all 'GOD ISN'T A WOMAN' simpleminded plebians. This is one of two or three reasons i came here. If you see lots of 3's and 7's in particularly good games or TV shows. she's there. You just need to know where to look. This female entity appears to free thinkers 'Conspiracists' she is the one who denies all ignorance and keeps it on a tight leash. But as i said prior. The leash just is invisible. It's very much there.

P.S:I know this post is kinda off topic...the ironic thing is I believe science can explain 99%[including the entities I mention] of everything so save your 'i'm a religious lunatic comments' ..I just believe in things beyond my understanding that keep our planet on the right track. In the end That's how I feel on the matter. Much of the anomalies i discuss could be explained if we actually decided to put any thought into it. It's easier to explain these things as real then to just diss it as 'impossible'. In closing I believe in science. What I DON'T believe in is LCDs telling me what I think is wrong because of some objective/subjective 'impossibility'

P.P.S:This is not to you the one i'm replying to. This is to everyone ELSE who decides to start throwing things at me from the peanut gallery.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: BO XIAN

. . .

10. It's blanket generalizations like this that make your position collapse.

Said he . . . with a grand flourish of a blanket generalization OPINION that is thoroughly inadequate to stand on it's straw man of a pole.

9. Science does not cast out people that go against the norm. . . .

HOGWASH. I'd have thought you might be aware of some examples. Some have surfaced even in the MSM.

8. LMAO at revering saints. There are no saints. . . .

HOGWASH yet again. I've gagged dozens of times at folks who've exalted rapturously at the purported lofty magnificence of Carl Sagan, Darwin, Dawkins et al.

I can understand the denial of such facts, however. One of the articles I posted spoke to how difficult it was to overcome the addiction to such a perspective.

7. Science does not make up stories. . . . Science just follows evidence. Sorry you hate this so much.

LOLOLOL . . . . WHAT UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH! Science is rife with made-up stories. Then they are couched as theories. Then they are spoken of in lofty terms as though the theories have been unquestionably affirmed. LOLOL.

I far from hate any honest science. I rather love and enjoy it. Anything that uncovers a bit more of Yehovah's majestic creation is wonderful, to me. The fact that you have failed to notice such a solid and obvious fact about me is very telling about your powers of observation. I don't think I'd trust much of your science given such faulty observational skills.

It's the phony, corrupt, greedy, power-mongering, !!!CONTROLLING!!! Religion of Scientism 'carp' that I deplore.

6. Another laughable one with the code of ethics. The code is only that you follow the scientific method. Science is not a person, it doesn't follow ethics. That is what the humans who use it must choose, for example nuclear energy and nuclear bombs.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh but that's the rub. The Religion of Scientism acolytes and high priests DO NOT FOLLOW the authentic scientific method with much integrity in every discipline . . . sometimes seemingly on every hand. Its embarrassing. Except that one can understand that they MUST lie to themselves and the public in order to sleep nights about their grand frauds, fraudulent data, fraudulent reporting and fraudulent interpretations.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh

5. Priesthood is ridiculously absurd.

Just because you are evidently blind to their prissy prancing around the halls of academia, professional journals and at professional conferences is NO SIGN AT ALL that they have ceased to exist or ceased to behave thusly.

4. Science has no dogmas. . . .

That's amazing that you could write that with presumably a straight face. It's more shocking that you evidently even believe it to be true.

Some examples of the unmitigated brazenly transparent dogma poo have been mentioned hereon.

I understand that denial helps you sleep nights.

3. Science does not bend. Once again, you bring up corporate greed and government projects to claim science bends. That is laughable. It doesn't bend. Either the experiments prove something or they don't. There is no middle ground where they can force something to work without a legitimate method to do so.

I'm beginning to think that not only are we NOT on the same planet--I don't think we're in the same galactic cluster. You obviously have little awareness of the massive evidence to the contrary across virtually every discipline of science. Scientific high priests have not only bent the data; they've bent the reporting and the interpretations to satisfy their own egos; their lust for tenure; their lust for power; their lust for corporate monies.

But again, you are talking about "wet birds flying at night" . . . something my OP was NOT about. Where good science was done with integrity; reported honestly and interpreted reasonably well--I only cheer. Where it was royally corrupted as we've described repeatedly . . . often with great adorations, genuflections toward Darwin and Dawkins; worshipful reverence toward the money dispensing high priests . . . that's a different matter.

2. . . . MOST science is backed by peer reviewed research papers which anybody can read or test for themselves. . . .

Evidently you are thoroughly ignorant--of the numbers of cases where fraudulent peer reviewed papers went unchallenged for a decade or several decades. No surprise there. Denial is a powerful force.0

1. Science does not require faith.

What a shocking level of ignorance of science in any truly objective way. Amazing. Sometimes the amount of faith required is many times that the average Pentecostal musters up.

When you demonstrate a better and more fair-minded grasp of the true facts about science and the demonstrated corruptions of it in our culture, perhaps THEN we MIGHT have a slightly useful dialogue. I won't be holding my breath.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

Not at all.

Not by a long shot, actually.

Every person posting on this thread from anything close to my perspective has a great deal of respect for SOLID SCIENCE done with integrity; reported with integrity and interpreted with integrity.

You are tilting at windmills. messing about with a kennel full of straw dogs . . . and generally proving the OP's points by doing so with such an intense RELIGIOUS FERVOR.

Amazing.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

BTW, thanks for your brazenly assaultive insult--I couldn't produce a better illustration of your character if I tried, for a month. I gather it ramps up your smug haughtiness considerably?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

It has been suggested (and not without some supporting data) that red-shift is actually quantized. There has not been any definitive refutation but if such is the case, then the Hubble constant (again) is not actually showing us an optical Doppler-shift. That means that the basis of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, falls.

Additionally, Big Bang cosmologists tell us that the Universe inflated superluminally. How? It goes against all we know of physics. Surely that one is an example of Science not correcting itself?

What about the absence of 'firewalls' at the Schwatzchild radii of Black Holes? Has science corrected itself there?

But perhaps you meant errors that are unlikely to be corrected. How about the following:

I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Notice phrases like "between" (indicating a relationship in two quanitities) "conflict" "warfare" "relation between the two."

So, here we have one source clearly demonstrating that science is NOT a religion.

You still don't understand the point of the OP. no one is saying the pure act of studying natural and physical empirical observation is religion, but it is those who adhere to the dogmatic doctrine and disallow the honest questioning who have establish a faith-based system and excommunicate anyone who defies. It's constantly demonstrated throughout this thread! People have called me scientifically illiterate solely for the fact that I'm pointing out these weaknesses in the scientific community - that is, their inability to reconsider old theories based on new evidence and the blind zealousness with which they dismiss such empirical evidence.

It's quite simple, cooperton. If you think science is wrong, then it is up to you to prove it. Demonstrate an instance where science has given us an erroneous answer and failed to correct itself.

Hubble finds universe may be expanding faster than expected - Phys.org No one has yet altered the agreed age of the Universe based upon these new findings. Science hasn't corrected itself yet.

Or, if you prefer, I have seen biological scientists ridicule the Genesis account of biological life occurring before there were stars. Yet these same scientists also know of biological organisms living in thermal vents with no exposure to light and they also know that conditions may have existed where sufficient warmth and chemistry were available and accumulated, prior to stellar ignition. I'm not saying that they are wrong, just saying their ridicule is unfounded (This attitude also prevents them from actually looking to see if such is possible).

So, two instances should be sufficient.

So...science was wrong, but not really.

Only wrong for very small values of wrong, eh?

Like being slightly dead, I suppose.

Please re-read, I've added some cases.