Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir
Sure, and then they are no longer acting as scientists. A police officer can break the law even, there are countless cases of law enforcers being law breakers. This does not contradict what I say. The reason why other scientists will believe what one scientist does is because of its empirical reproducibility, not the faith of the one making the claim.
The essence of science is reproducibility. Nothing needs to be taken on faith.
I agree in principle with what you suggest should happen in that perfect world, but you will have noticed the many inconsistancies in principled practice with every human institution. Science by vitrtue of it's power and potential to dictate and enforce human developement ensured it's capture and control by the very same interests who have gutted the hopes and dreams of free people everywhere.
We can thank scientists for the most hedious weapons of murder, count them, calculate the deficit of ethics that allow the psycopathic pursuit of insturments such as weaponized influenza or any of the other million and one ingenious but inhumane, cruel and destructive evils spewed out of the military industrial complex at the behest of the corporate security complex.
Fallen scientists, the earth has a glut of them it would seem, there is never a problem finding many willing to advance murder.
As much as a certain school of science insists it's comprehension of reality to be qualitatively superior to the other schools of human thought there is little empiricle evidence to support that blind conciet.
Ethicly and morally the scientific community is bankrupt, thier silence is deafening. We can blame much of the worlds ills on the willing scientific community and we can prove it in court, as a body scientist do not deserve the adulation heaped upon them, they have abrogated the trust of the species and fed us enmass to the hucksters and hawkers of twenty-first century snakeoil, in every imaginable way. As a group they have served in the enslavement of mankind and the retardation of the species, never mind the obvious but flawed special interest advancements, they are as a whole far less worthy than you contend. My opinions are as old as science itself, the control I mentioned was instituted very early as you might expect with a priceless tool, first by the religious and then by the money, a bigger lot of harlots we would be hard pressed to find, surely in the same class as the legal profession. Science has no official independent voice and maybe it shouldn't have in light of its criminal record.
In the one hand,"nothing needs to be taken on faith" you say, in the other the empiricle evidence of your faith in science as practised. You have no faith in science it seems. I believe you contradict yourself a tiny little bit perhaps.
Every bit of that rant of mine is supported by evidence.
Last edited by darkbeaver; May 3rd, 2009 at 05:18 PM..