The essence of doubting the religion of science

Be the 1st to vote.

So much of science, or any other belief system, is based on a tiny kernel or seed that took root. Even if the seed is impure, the forest that grows up around it is taken for granted as good and soon you have a huge forest that you cannot remember where it came from. From to the to , they all adhere to this basic theme.

And nobody can ever go out and investigate NASA claims around rockets in the vacuum independently of NASA.

Space science is like a cult run by ancient priests who speak to the Gods in private. We’re not supposed to think for ourselves. We only wait until the NASA oracle tells us the great truths divulged only to them. This is not how science, nor modern, information-based, educated society is supposed to function. The goal of education is for us to learn how to figure things out for ourselves; to examine, to evaluate and to reason with the facts and data. What good is that training if, in the end, we can only shut up and believe what we are told with no proof, no solid theory behind it and no way to check the results or repeat their experiments ourselves?

Rocketry is not unique in this regard. Pretty much all the big results in science follow this pattern. Anyone who challenges the status quo is labeled an 0;idiot” or a “religious nut” which is ironic because science is behaving more and more like a religion based on faith and less and less of a method based on observation.

via Why Rocketry Doesn’t Work in the Vacuum •

No tags for this post.

4 thoughts on “The essence of doubting the religion of science

  1. I_Gestalta

    Real science does not hinge itself on belief—it is not a religion, but a tool. Let us not allow the usefulness of the scientific method to be hijacked by politicized mysticism and alchemy. When we say things akin to “science is a religion”, we should always be sure to make the distinction between science, and the modern-day scientific community.

    1. Aaron

      ^^^Great point. There is a VERY important distinction to be made between real scientific inquiry, and science falsely so called. The definition of real science is finding solutions that are testable, observable and repeatable. Science is responsible for cars, computers, telephones and all kinds of other high technology.

      Most of these government-sponsored “scientific” agencies, such as NASA, EPA, FDA, etc don’t produce any science that people like us can verify for ourselves. They keep it very self-contained, and manipulate scientific results to bolster their theories of evolution, global warming, overpopulation, heliocentric universe, etc. Usually their articles are hidden in extremely confusing and complex sounding jargon, in order to make us think that they are so much smarter than us, and we are just too dumb to understand.

      In the religion of science, people must rely on authorities to tell the truth about life. And knowing what we know about how the big boys lie about nearly everything, I don’t trust the scientific establishment for a single second.

  2. aj

    Yes I believe science is a religion as well. Religion and science are similar because both require believing in something that can’t be proven. Even the health movement is somewhat of a religion. This is a tough one because it’s really hard for us to prove the specific functions food has on our bodies so we tend to look to others for knowledge. But in reality, how do we know who is telling the truth? Sorry I’m a little off topic

  3. simon shack

    Thanks for linking to this important thread on Cluesforum, Ab! I believe we have made some decent headway lately in highlighting the fundamental problems of space travel – as sold to us by NASA and ESA. I now feel (almost) ready for discussing this on your radio show – whenever you like. We need to take this step by step though, as it is truly a vast and daunting subject – one may even call it ‘stratospheric’! :O)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.