Is "science" the theology of leftists?

Is "science" the theology of leftists?

  • Yes, I think it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
"Is "science" the theology of leftists?"

Yes. The great thing about 'Science', unlike Mysticism practiced by the Religious Cults, is that it can change as new information is discovered.
(Like, if you propose that the Earth revolves around the Sun, you won't be burned at the Stake as a Heretic)

Scientists 'Burn people at the Stake' a lot. It happened with the Theory of Tectonics. It happened with the falsification of the terracentric universe. It continues to happen to this day. Scientists are like most people. A lot of them don't like change.

Science isn't scientists. It isn't even people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It does not use consensus. It has no elite voting bloc. A theory is nothing more than an explanatory argument. A theory of science must be falsifiable (that is, testable against that theory's null hypothesis using a test that is definable, available, practical, specific, and produces a specific result).
 
They wish. If they pretend that "science" is what they say it is, then get people to pretend to believe and say that folks on the "other side" are "anti-science" then they get to sound like they are elite and brilliant.
 
They wish. If they pretend that "science" is what they say it is, then get people to pretend to believe and say that folks on the "other side" are "anti-science" then they get to sound like they are elite and brilliant.

Yes. A real problem with the left. They use 'science' like a buzzword. It somehow confers Absolute Truth on whatever lie or religion they are pushing at the moment.
Examples: The Church of Global Warming. the Church of Green. the Church of Covid, the Church of Abiogenesis, the Church of the Theory of Evolution, the Church of the Big Bang, the Church of the Theory of Creation, the Church of God Denial (made up of people that mistakenly call themselves 'atheists'). There are many others.
 
Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

Scientism exists in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to the claims of scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as "scientific".

This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.

"The belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".

Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."

Paul Feyerabend, who was an enthusiastic proponent of scientism in his youth, later came to characterize science as "an essentially anarchic enterprise" and argued emphatically that "science" merits no exclusive monopoly over "dealing in knowledge" and that scientists have never operated within a distinct and narrowly self-defined tradition. In his essay Against Method he depicted the process of contemporary scientific education as a form of indoctrination, aimed at "making the history of science duller, simpler, more uniform, more 'objective' and more easily accessible to treatment by strict and unchanging rules."

"Science can stand on its own feet and does not need any help from rationalists, secular humanists, Marxists and similar religious movements; and non-scientific cultures, procedures and assumptions can also stand on their own feet and should be allowed to do so ... Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science. In a democracy, scientific institutions, research programs, and suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there must be a separation of state and science".

Scientism is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Your poll is abmiguous. Why is "science" in quotes? Leftists are scientifically illiterate and refer to other strange religions as "science" ... and your poll isn't asking in what ways Leftists are trying to redefine the word "science" but seems to be asking about science itself ... yet it's supposed to be about Leftists.
 
Conclusions can be wrong.
Science cannot lead to incorrect conclusions and be science. Your understanding of "science" is that of a religion.

Take your Global Warming religion as an example. You believe in it, and you also believe as an integral part of the faith that your religion is "science." You are totally hosed. The entire reason you are a member of the Global Warming congregation is that you were targetted by Marxist Global Warming recruiters because of your scientific illiteracy which precludes you from even knowing what science is. As such, you were manipulated and tooled reamed full of misinformation that you mindlessly regurgitate, not unlike church hymns of the choir.
 
Back
Top