Science
There was a time once when people discussed Religion and Science, as though they were alternative ways of understanding the human condition.
For most thinking people this is no longer a valid debating point. Religion has been deemed irrelevant, and the discussion has moved on.
Well I want to bring it back. For the very good reason that having won the argument Science (with a capital 'S') has itself become a religion. If you don't believe me, consider how often you read a statement beginning with the words 'scientists believe...'. If this phrase does not hurt your ears a little, you have already fallen into the trap. Doh! What trap?
The basis of science is discovering the nature of things by hypothesis and experimental testing. By this means we get to know the truth, and 'scientia' is the Latin for knowledge, things I can 'scio', 'know'.
So the statement 'scientists believe' is no more useful (and no less useful) than 'lorry drivers believe', for the beliefs of any scientist are exactly those parts of their life not based on science.
There is another reason to suspect any statement couched in terms of 'scientists believe', and that is that anyone who is a scientist usually calls himself a biologist, a chemist, a physicist, or whatever, but rarely simply a 'scientist'. Science as an academic discipline is just too huge for any one person to be a generalist: there are no thermo-nuclear- physicists who are specialists in, say, botany or any other branch of science.
Please bear with me, as this matters. Where is 'Science' taking the human race, and do we really want to go there? And who are the high priests of this religion, who call themselves 'scientists'? Above all, what is this religion called Science, and what are its beliefs?
The scientific method can be very simply stated: it is a verification process, that demands repeatability. If I propose a hypothesis, then my verification process must be watertight; all possible logical alternatives must be ruled out, and my experiments must be capable of being repeated with the same results every time. My hypothesis must also be potentially refutable. I must propose certain sets of data that would, if they occurred, actually disprove my hypothesis. So, my hypothesis must, in essence, be both verifiable and refutable. Even then Newton will be corrected by Einstein, and Einstein will be corrected by ..., and so on for a long time yet, as our ability to find and handle new data progresses.
All the beneficial advances made in the last three centuries or so have been made possible because doctors, chemists, biologists, and physicists have found out the truth about blood circulation, viruses, bacteria, combustion, and a million other things by direct observation, and experimental verification. To give but one example, infant mortality was drastically reduced when doctors started washing their hands between observation of different pregnant mothers, and that not so long ago. The list is endless of how beneficial knowledge ('scientia') can be.
Knowledge replaces superstition, and sometimes (eventually) vested interests too. The pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, and of course all the science used in the construction of warfare technology, have a legacy that is not entirely for the benefit of the human race. It needs to be remembered that science has given us both aspirins and heroin, both immunization and nerve gas, and so on; the list is endless.
The rockets that propel our communication satellites into space, the internal combustion engine that takes us to work, and almost every appliance we take for granted, have all arrived on the basis of knowledge gained by scientific observation, measurement, and verification. Science is truly the basis for civilization as we know it. But it is up to humans to determine whether any scientific advance is good for us or not.
I intend to follow through with a little more about knowledge, how we can know anything, before moving on to more central themes.