Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

The argument is not evolution, per se, but how things evolved. The existing scenario doesn't sit quite right with a wide range of people. An analogy is saying gravity is caused by pixie dust and then showing that gravity exists with tons of data to prove it. One side of the argument sees all the data which proves gravity does indeed exist, but it fails to understand the pixie dust premise may need some work. The alternatives ignore the data because they are concerned that pixie dust may not be the correct base assumption. One does not get the same divided reaction against atoms because the assumptions sit well with almost everyone.

The bottom line is all statistical based theory is not fully rational, but is an approximation for reason, when one is not able to provide reason. This means there is still some room to be rational. If we just close the deal then we are trying to shut out reason with an approximation for reason. This starts to look like a form of religion.

Let me give a loose analogy using a dialog between reason and statistics. Statistical studies show cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. One may reason, I see the data, and it looks good, but give me your line of reasoning so I can determine if I will develop cancer or not. Well, all smokers are at risk. What about the people who don't develop cancer. If they were at risk how come their risk was different than another person's risk? That is not important. What is important is if everyone just believes we will save lives. So what you are saying is, I need to use faith, since there are no reasons for me, but there is a good correlation for the herd.

If I join the herd does that mean I can no longer try to find reason for myself since that might rock the boat? Exactly, you will be kicked out of the herd and kicked by it. We have political clout and have ways to get you in line or away from the line. Isn't this type of science tactic repressive to the power of reason? Who needs reason, it is way overrated when politics or religion get involved.

Now I understand your reasons. If we use statistical fog then the herd is easier to keep in line. It also allows the priests of the tradition to sit on high directing the herd within the fogginess of fear caused by lack of reason. Does that mean you are setting the ground work for a modern religion? The other religions are not going to like that. They will have to compete. But I can see the beauty of using the pre-rational math; even if it quacks like a duck, you can call it a science goose, so you are exempt from separation of church and state. This gives you extra clout to assure recruitment and the conformity of the herd. It will no longer be free choice or reason. Good luck, but I think I'll pass, and try to look for reasons on my own.