Everyone loves science, do they not? It is a methodical and oftentimes successful way to aid in furthering our understanding of the world around us, both the seen and the unseen. It has resulted in important advancements in medical technology, the industrial sector, renewable energy, biology, sociology, just to name a few of the many fields that use science.
As of late, however, there are some strange notions about science making the airwaves. Examples abound: the most well-known reads "the science is settled." This peculiar idea of science being settled is a rather strange one due to the nature of science and research itself. That phrase is often applied when arguing about, say, the potential dangers of vaccination with a so-called "anti-vaxxer." Another application of it is used in defense of climate change science, in order to drive back the growing hoards of "climate skeptics" from the field of debate. And yet another scientifically-minded person might use the apparent settledness of the science to refute criticism of the side effects of pharmaceuticals. This concept is also used to discredit research done in the name of holistic health and herbal medicine.
Another well-known concept among the scientifically-minded community is that things that have no physical, measurable proof simply do not exist until they are identified. Atheists use this to argue against the possibility of a God; many use this idea to refute the probability of any sort of spirituality or "dimensions of being" beyond the physical realm of the five senses. Considering all the musings outlined above, it has seemed, in our modern world, that science has been grossly misused and its followers led down a path that is supposed to be at odds with science:
One can freely admit that religion, with all its trappings and rules and regulations, is fairly dogmatic. It is a difficult and sometimes impossible task to convince a religious person, especially those belonging to the many types of Christianity, that any scientific finding that indirectly or directly conflicts with the beliefs of their religion is true. The same goes for independent, critical interpretations of religious text; if someone tries to present an alternate viewpoint of a religious belief to that sect's followers, it is often universally rejected in favor of whatever belief system the religious individual(s) have had in place their whole lives. So it is no surprise that religion is considered dogmatic, because it predicates its truthfulness almost purely upon faith and not necessarily intellectual or critical thought processes..Science is generally perceived to be at odds with religion much of the time. The scientific community's insistence on the theory of evolution, for example, has made it an enemy of many a Christian. But in the recent years of the 2nd Millennium A.D, science has become less of an objective observer of pure truth and a beacon of open-minded exploration and more like a church-going crowd. "Science" is used to discredit anything the general population has been collectively advised is untrue, such as the documented dangers of vaccine injections or the idea that man's contribution to global warming is minuscule or minor. "The science is settled!" The crowds cry, gleefully slandering those who would present an alternate version of the science they've know of for so long. "Cannabis kills people" they shout, all the while traveling to the nearest McDonald's to consume french fries with ingredients used in silly putty
One thing is for sure: science has become as dogmatic as its long-time enemy, religion.
There is no longer room for thought outside of the accepted scientific narratives the population has consumed for decades on end. Science has become a God, reveling in the worship of its followers and protectors. Once blind like Lady Justice, Science has now torn the blindfold off and has availed its gaze to whoever demonstrates that they are the highest bidder. The lips of Science, once bound by the unbreakable chains of truth, now speak for whoever slips the proper currency into the dollar-shaped electronic lock of its bindings. And all the while the followers of the changed and indeed unrecognizable Science proclaim its supremacy throughout the land while simultaneously hunting down and defaming or destroying those heretics who might present a viewpoint counter to the dollar-fueled, golden lies of the new Science... the Immutable Science.
There is a rather large issue to be seen with this development. Science, when rightfully applied, has resulted in the technological leaps and bounds humans had that allow mankind to enjoy the comforts they adore today. In order to be rightfully applied, however, Science must be absolutely and completely objective to the data and information it generates, without sway by promise of profit or its funding depending on achieving a predetermined outcome. In addition, it must be open-minded and potentially accepting of new discoveries, theories, and hypotheses; it cannot reject the idea of the existence of something simply based on the fact that no physical data exists for such. And yet this is exactly what the followers of Science do... they reject critical thought on the sensitive scientific subjects and expel the idea that anything beyond what our physical measurements can perceive can exist.
They also refuse to acknowledge independent research much of the time... social media alone is filled with comments along the lines of "If a scientist or specialist of some kind did not say it or support the statement, it cannot be true." This latest concept alone encourages people not to absorb information by its merit or truth but by manner of who published the information in question. Suddenly an independent researcher or journalist is automatically discredited because "he's/she's not a scientist, so how would he/she know?" It was recently discovered that the climate science used in the latest climate change report from the government, for example, has many major issues. Yet the dogged defenders of Immutable Science will no doubt continue to insist that our production of CO2 is harming the planet (despite the fact that plants breathe CO2 in order to produce oxygen) and therefore a costly "carbon tax", which taxes people simply for being alive and moving about, must be implemented.
It is taken on faith that since the U.S government fluoridates the water of Americans, fluoride must be safe to consume and articles or studies claiming the contrary must be bad science. It is taken on faith that vaccine, no matter the type, dosage, or number administered, are safe in any and all combinations. So of course studies finding this to be untrue or articles explaining those studies are ignored at best and at worst ostracized and branded "anti-science." It is taken on faith that 5G technology is safe to be around, despite this report published by the National Toxicology Program that suggest such technology is capable of causing cancer in rats. If it can cause cancer in rats, then why not humans? But, as expected, the devout and holy followers of Immutable Science state that since the government has not expressed concern, and all the top scientists say it is safe, it is therefore perfectly healthy to be surrounded by high-frequency non-ionizing radiation every hour of every day.
It is taken on faith that since mathematics and current science cannot quantify such mystical and mysterious concepts such as spirits, spiritual planes of existence, God, angels, meditation, energy healing, etc., that such things, places or methods must simply not exist (when they could simply be immeasurable to physical instruments or our current scientific standpoint is insufficient for understanding these concepts). For all Immutable Science knows, God could simply be the combined sum consciousness of all that exists, unifying into a massive hive mind as cells unify to form the human body. Spirits and spiritual beings could simply be invisible unless viewed in certain light spectrums, or they might remain imperceptible until a person's mind develops the capability to access higher dimensions of reality. Hallucinations (such as those induced by drugs), rather than being "something that is not there", could simply be a temporary upward development of the human mind, allowing the brain to perceive worlds and parts of reality it could not sense before. It is foolish to dismiss the possibility of spiritual concepts and realms when Science knows so very precious little of even the physical world, much less the potential higher levels of reality where physical tools cannot function.
Science is supposed to be beholden to the truth, but at the same time be open-minded to new theories, ideas and concepts. It is adaptable. It changes, it evolves. But the followers of Immutable Science continue to say otherwise. As one must know by now, the science is settled; there can't possibly be any more debate on it now, can there? Look at those amazingly smart people in their laboratories; those sexy white lab coats, those beautifully shiny stethoscopes, those enigmatic and expensive microscopes. Everyone must listen to them, yes? They are the scientists. They are the smart people. They know what they're saying and doing. Never mind that man on the internet proclaiming their fraud and deception... he couldn't possibly know what scientific truths they know. He's proclaiming that their research is questionable due to the fact they have conflicting interests? That's doesn't matter, they're Scientists.
And so the Holy Scions of the Church of Science lead their flock wherever strikes their fancy; all the while many of them explain the highly complicated Science that the poor laymen could not possibly fully understand, smiling as they feel the soft green papers pour onto their open hands from the various special interests funding their research. Silly layman, it doesn't matter that the CDC owns over 20 vaccine patents and makes $4 billion per year from them, and so would be financially incentivized to proclaim vaccination safe no matter what the real scientific truth was on the matter. "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness." – Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-In-Chief of the Lancet.
Do not question them! They're Scientists.
They must be right.