The Science Cult

In societies that hold intellectual knowledge as prestigious, it appears that science has emerged a following that resembles a cult. Now its fair to say that the intent of science is to be objective and unswayed by subjective opinions. Even though science sets out to be humble, it is not humble in practice because humans are molding it to please their egos rather than searching for accurate truth.

Some theories that scientist have identified themselves with are not easily challenged. It almost seems ludicrous to question theories that have been "proven." The attitude of questioning within science is related to sinning in religion. It seems okay to question God(this is not a god debate, just making a analogy) but question the theory of gravity and you will be mocked.

The sad part is that science can be a great tool to society but it is being held back due to pride within the scientific community. Another issue is that even when science does have breakthroughs, most of them are useless to most of the world. Cures to illness and technology costs far too much for many in the world to enjoy. So in the end, I believe science sets out with the best intentions but falls short because of the human condition limits the benefits of science for most of the world.

Sadly, I feel science has become the tool for the elites. Rather than learning for learning's sake it has become the eyes, ears and sword of "public policy" (which nobody voted for!).
Drones, JDAMS, Prism, LRADs - all courtesy of science. Some folks feel the trifling goodies released to the public like Iphones and plasma tv's somehow compensate us for it. I disagree. Science does not serve the public interest. We get the crumbs and the controllers get the whole buffet.
Science has become enslaved to the masters of money.
Nobody else can afford to fund them so they continue to create new ways to spy, control and destroy.

reply to post by Ralphy


Science use to be about improving our knowledge of the natural world. Now it seems man is using man to improve scientific knowledge with little to no regard of the impact on the world at large. If that makes sense . . . I've only had one cup of coffee . . .

Unlike the option religion had... you still have the option to make an experiment and prove the "elite" wrong.

You won't get killed for your opposing ideas. That's the best part about science... everyone is at each other's throat to prove each other wrong...in the process we get advancements!

if you have a valid theory, you can present that to the scientific association and hopefully, be prepared to be bombarded with barrage of questions.

cult (klt)
n.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Reading the various definitions listed on the big G, id say it doesn't really fit,
number 6 is closest but science isn't exclusive.

Originally posted by Ralphy
In societies that hold intellectual knowledge as prestigious, it appears that science has emerged a following that resembles a cult. Now its fair to say that the intent of science is to be objective and unswayed by subjective opinions. Even though science sets out to be humble, it is not humble in practice because humans are molding it to please their egos rather than searching for accurate truth.

Some theories that scientist have identified themselves with are not easily challenged. It almost seems ludicrous to question theories that have been "proven." The attitude of questioning within science is related to sinning in religion. It seems okay to question God(this is not a god debate, just making a analogy) but question the theory of gravity and you will be mocked.

The sad part is that science can be a great tool to society but it is being held back due to pride within the scientific community. Another issue is that even when science does have breakthroughs, most of them are useless to most of the world. Cures to illness and technology costs far too much for many in the world to enjoy. So in the end, I believe science sets out with the best intentions but falls short because of the human condition limits the benefits of science for most of the world.

All this is true, and yet it still is less dangerous than religion.

Dewey Larson expounds on this topic profusely. He describes in meticulous detail and in the most articulate fashion how the scientific community simply shuns anyone who questions the classic models of the universe.
Anyone who presents a genuine new way of thinking is laughed at. Everything is stuck at the Einstein and Newtownian universe.

But when you say "question the theory of gravity and you will be mocked", you are confusing two different definitions of theory. There is theory in the context of science, and theory in the context of non-science.
In science, a theory doesn't always just mean a hypothesis, or an experiment, or a guess even. A theory could be something that has all the facts in the world to support it, but it is still labeled a theory until it is peer reviewed by other scientists, published in a sufficient number of scientific journals, etc...Theory is simply a term to describe an explanation of certain things. Therefore, the theory of gravity may be supported by accurate and truthful facts, yet it is still a theory until a certain amount of time passes without new evidence.

But yes, you are correct about the scientific community shunning those who question the classic views. "You can tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back" And sadly, it is somewhat analagous to religion. Questioning is supposed to be the goal of science, yet when one questions things that have already been "proven" they are shunned.

I equate this argument and attitude equivalent to the guns and violence argument.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Here we have very similar. It's not Science, or even the scientists you should be complaining about.
You should be complaining about the corporations that fund scientists to achieve only what they want, and/or publish results giving them (the special interest corporations) political advantage.

Please, stop with the Science and Scientist bashing. Science is the gun, where scientists could be the bullets, or vice versa. Whomever holds the gun and what they put it to use for are whom you should be worried about.

I think I know what you mean. But "the cult of science" are not followed by scientist. Now day many people use the lack of knowledge to do some mystification about science. I remember seeing thing like "Unlock your genes" of "The quatum theories say that you can control the world whit perception". That was really funny to read, they don't understand half of the concept, and yet, try to say they understand everything in universe! Don't mixe them with scientific please, that'sl hurt my pride!

And yes, some scientist have a big ego. But whit proof, you'll get backed by the majorities of scientific. You don't have to convince every one to make thing go forward. At some point in sciences histories, the guy who was right had only a thin group of peoples supporting him.

Alway remember, sciences is only the best perception of world whe got. It is not the truth, and may never be. People can be wrong. A majorities can be wrong.

There a thing you can do to prevent the "cult of science". Tell people to be sceptic. To not trust a "specialist" but facts. And to never forget, a true scientist won't fear your question and will like to be proven wrong. Is may not be easy tought, they are used to have good tool's (I think about scientific database that the university give me acces. No one "normal" can afford the price of that tool!)

Finaly, I'm a scientist, I've been proven wrong many time. I can tell you, science is being wrong 95% of time! So when people prove me wrong, they save me alot of time (that may be count in years!).

I think science is moving along quite nicely thanks!


We have 7 billion folks running around this ball of water and rock and most are way better off than they were 100 years ago.


Look I'd love a fast cure for cancer (my wife would still be alive) but I didn't get it. Science did come up for a fix on my cat though (blood test =new thyroid type diet = better now) so that was great (one year ago I'd hve to have given my cat pills every day ..but now you can feed them a special diet (just using as example) people get the same treatments as time marches forward.


Some countries and people resist change.


Some religions rather pray than give medicine or give or take blood.


Its all relative.


We are humans and went to space. That's science.


We can type and instantly post crap like I'm writing here.


Everything is as it probably should be.


Hell an asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference anyway.


I only had one coffee also.

I have to star and flag this thread because it's content is often true. Evidence is twisted and misapplied a lot of the time to show someones insight is correct and it is often not allowed to be used to prove another theory where it can be used even though it fits better. Science has become a slave of funding and prestige in some cases, using Occams Razor to cut the truth often so funding for the science can continue. Economic impact is often the biggest other element involved in this deception, not actually the research itself. It is how the evidence is interpreted and applied that is the reason that science has become something like a cult. True science, although not really impressive to most people, is really good for this world if applied correctly. True science right now is suppressed too much by other factors.

A researcher rarely will challenge what their research is used for if it jeopardizes his lifestyle and continued employment. That is just the way it is, it is often not the researchers intent for the information to be misapplied.

Both religion and cults twist evidence to fit their beliefs. The interpreters of the research are doing the same thing often in science, that is why scientists often cannot agree on things.

reply to post by Ralphy


Richard Feynman once mused that "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". He also coined a term "cargo cult science" in the 1970's as a critique of much of the more newsworthy research being done, especially social science arena. Cargo Cult Science had all the superficial appearances of science but lacked anything resembling the scientific method.

I think what the OP is getting at here, and something I wholeheartedly agree with, is that over the past century or so Science has taken on some of the worst superficial trappings of the pop culture machine and religion .. and I say this as a deeply religious individual.

"Scientists" defend their theories like holy dogma and apply the results of their studies to buttress political arguments that always (surprisingly) suit their own political beliefs (think of the Nuclear Winter debate back in the 80's spearheaded by Carl Sagan). In this way, they can use their 'science' to beat the opposition over the head with charges of reactionary or fundamentalist. When research is presented that challenges political ideology, the high priests of the science-pop culture-political machine do everything in their power to discredit the heretic, even if they cannot discredit his work.

Anyone who thinks that 'science' and 'reason' based replacements to religious institutions will result in a more peaceful world need look no further than the very first experiment in this: the French Revolution and its cult of reason. Every individual is built with the potential for fanaticism (of any shape imaginable) and when you provide them with a fertile soil to grow that fanaticism unchecked it becomes dangerous. So far, we haven't figured out a way around this and I doubt we ever will.

reply to post by Ralphy


Yes science has a religious dimension, and religion has a science dimension. Its not easy for each to see themselves or the other clearly.

Sometimes they compete and sometimes they sharpen each other... serving as whetstone and then as sword. Each is a competing narrative.

reply to post by Druscilla


what a fitting analogy.

reply to post by Druscilla


This would be a blanket statement to absolve all scientists guilt regardless of what they are working on. Many know that their work will ultimately be used to destroy lives or privacy yet they continue for a paycheck. The same could be said of many soldiers as well. Once one realizes their vocation is actually being used against humanity they have a choice to make, a moral choice.
I can't speak for the OP but I don't condemn all scientists by any means. Unfortunately, most of the best and brightest have been snatched up by the defense and intelligence industries. Those who still work for the advancement of knowledge for it's own sake are fewer and fewer these days.

reply to post by Ralphy

It seems okay to question God(this is not a god debate, just making a analogy) but question the theory of gravity and you will be mocked.

How about you use another example instead of a completely stupid one.

I hate how people use these vague examples like "if you question the theory of gravity" without defining what is being questioned and presenting the controversy. They think this proves their point when it does nothing but make them look like religious idiots throwing a tantrum over science doing a great job at filtering out nonsense.

reply to post by Ralphy


I don’t trust science that much anymore, particularly when it comes to Medical and the food industry. One minute, something is good for you, the next it’s not, and then it is again.

As others have said, it really isn’t so much about science anymore, but profits and it has been for awhile. This goes even beyond the testy relationship between Tesla and Edison.

reply to post by Ralphy


I'm Christian. I believe in God. I also believe science. What does that make me?

reply to post by Auricom


An oxymoron?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I completely agree with you, and as a Inventor / Innovator I've come to a new concept of releasing further ideas and projects. I want to start a Open Source Company, but need to thoroughly plan out logistics of how such a entity would function without the aspect of corruption and greed infecting it, even if the very concept of this can prevent such it still can take place in a group effort.

I feel if we are able to have R&D Open Source Companies we will give Humanity a better more fair chance at the future. Stick it to the man by telling everyone.


On that note, the future is Magnetized.

Right now, Science community as a whole rejects most things that will propel us into the future ironically. We are still working with OIL for one example. I don't care if we have more than we do water it's the worst fuel to use, and we've infected it's use throughout our world in the name to line the pockets of others and prevent their companies from ever ( gasp ) not be needed.

In the name of the company is the motto of this age, horrible ideas and bad business models are rewarded and sustained even after they fail time and time again on their own in the name to keep a " friend or family " member a float so such and such can still get good bargains to make their profits.

You'd be amazed how scientists and facts are used so loosely to sway ideas and laws to the aspect of profit for all involved. Science is generally a thing of measurement, so just as bad measurements are used to sell products, lies and even dates, Science is used to sell bad facts and ideas about our world and even more importantly our species and others.

Take life and use science yourself and come to your own conclusions and you'll be more informed than anyone who listens to a guy with a PhD all the time, everytime.

So stand back.... I'm going to conduct science!

reply to post by denybedoomed


Not necessarily. I have an masters degree in engineering and I don't think the belief in God is in any way incompatible with a solid understanding of the laws of nature. I personally believe the two can compliment each other.