Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2
It seems to me that Science is far more than mere definition or mere information. It is a testable system of gathering and organization of data that rejects cruft and places odds on reliability to allow the best possible conclusions of understanding the world. It is an ever-evolving, recursive and self-correcting process, not simply a string of accepted facts.
|
You see, I think you are equating the industry of science with the definition of science.
Although, you make a good analysis of the conotation that "industry," brings, you basically are disregarding that what ever organization employs scientists
is agenda driven, and all the rest of the descriptors. You, just are not identifying all the specifics, because they may not be available, or your idealism of science causes you to disregard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2
As for the last question I am admittedly uneasy about the term "science industry" since it seems to me to imply some static product churned out by some well-defined, agenda driven, profit seeking organization for mass consumption and I see no evidence of such a thing. Therefore, until I see some evidence, it doesn't exist for me and can't be answered.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2
I am even more concerned with "atheist peer group" (you suppose utter homogeneity?) and "offended, because the (your) definition does not meet their satisfaction" since a measuring ruler is useless if we don't agree on the length of an inch or a centimeter. How can you expect to talk Math with Mathematicians if you don't accept that a triangle always has three sides?
|
That is, basically, what I have been trying to convey to Atheists. They are prime examples of irrational thought in support of reason - if they are a bastion of reason, why can they not decide on anything?
Not even what to call themselves
