Science is a generic term. What is a "scientist" anyway?  Both are terms used to refer in general to a very wide variety of disciplines.

 

There are general categories and types of science that we can discuss.

 

There is empirical science (that which is known:  the sun is a star).

 

There is conjectural and hypothetical science, which is in truth philosophy dressed in a lab coat.  This is fine if it is presented as such.  Unfortunately it is all too often presented as scientific fact before it has earned that right. It becomes actual science only when experimentation begins and data begins emerging. It becomes fact once it is scientifically established as such, not when someone says, "The evidence seems to point to..."

 

It thus falls to the researcher to find which direction that science goes... even if it is contrary to existing beliefs.   This is widely known as scientific method.  It is an act of discovery. Empirical science is the hoped-for result. 

 

One of the most well-known examples of this is Einstein's Relativity:  time is not a constant.  That one really rocked the scientific community boat.  If Einstein had stuck to pre-disposed science we'd still be stuck in the early 1900s wondering why time math doesn't add up.

Then as with almost all areas of human endeavor, there is pseudo science... that which is proclaimed as science but is no more science than fairy tales and creative folk lore, composed of bias and intense personal opinion... shouted as loudly and vehemently as possible.  This last form of science can be difficult to tolerate, for it is no different than any other form of bigotry.  It is false science.

Too much opinion is dressed up in a lab coat so as to demand uncritical obedience.

We safeguard ourselves when we recognize that even science is not immune to human agenda and self-interest.

 

One of the Most Honest Statements I've Ever Read

I was reading a forum one day, a very heated discussion of evolution vs creation. I was surprised to read this statement:

 

"I am an evolutionist, but I don't believe one can state with certainty, 'There is no God'.  Because in all this vast universe, to dogmatically claim there cannot possibly be a life form significantly more intelligent and powerful than homo sapiens-- that we are the pinnacle of life in this universe and all dimensions beyond-- goes against the very concept of scientific method... which requires that we consider all possibilities without bias or prejudice."

 

What a brilliant, open-minded statement. The commenter didn't argue that there is or isn't a God. Rather he argued against taking a stance that goes against common sense. 

 

Consider:  The very tenet of evolutionary theory is that "given enough time and space almost anything is possible".   If one goes by that concept, then the idea of another life form vastly more intelligent and powerful than we are is almost a given. Most people if asked, "Do you believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?" will answer "probably" or "yes".  Either "almost anything is possible" or it isn't; one cannot have it both ways.  One cannot state that evolution is possible, but "God" isn't.  That is scientific bias extentending to bigotry.  It is not science; it is pseudo science-- scientific claim based on personal opinion with zero evidence.  Atheism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact. This holds true whether one believes in a God or not.

 

Note that like the evolutionist, I intentionally do not present here whether God exists or not (I do have my own opinions on the matter, but that is not the purpose of this article).  I discuss the logic of such existence, the probability that humans are most likely not the apex life form in all of existence.  We have a very limited five senses, a very limited sphere of experience and perception.  We can't even see ultra-violet light that is part of our daily lives.  How can we hope to see that which is beyond our planetary realm or invisible to our physical eyes?  

 

Scientific claims that cannot be proved or further-- are based solely on supposition, interpretation and conjecture are in truth mere guess work, and are no more scientifically valid than "Hold my beer".   It is pseudo science, and should be recognized and guarded against as such.  (I do not wish to be too outspoken in this, but at times one needs to speak plainly in effort to be understood.)

It is important that we as individuals learn to differentiate between these forms of science, because there is a strong tendency for people to hide behind a veneer of "this is scientific fact!" when in fact, it is not.  Protecting ourselves from pseudo-science is essential in the quest for truth and reality.   This has been my life-long task:  to separate truth from fiction.  This goal will often be found among the articles on this site-- unless the article is just pure fun.  Either way, I hope these missives prove to be of some benefit.  Beware pseudo science.  It is more common than one might think.

 

-- Pathfinder