> "Science" as it is practiced or understood by
> virtually all individuals is chiefly just another
> belief system.
That may be true, but at least it's a belief system that conjures up results that can be independently verified and not simply taken on faith. Science comes up with results that can be authenticated, e.g., as being safe and effective. For many of us, that's enough of a justification to keep scientific researc alive and well.
> Many individuals under this belief system have no
> compunctions about how, where, or why to use these
> beliefs. They don't understand that experiment
> makes no value judgements and don't of their
> nature confer understanding.
Well, one could argue that the first part -- experiment makes no value judgement -- is one of the virtues of scientific research. The second part -- that it doesn't confer understanding -- is a subjective value judgement! I believe science is a necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, tool to increase our understanding of the world around us.
> They are simply a means to allow reality to impose its presence in
> scientific results.
As opposed to what?
And what's wrong with that?
> I no sooner want to be a victim of science than
> the "Inquisition".
Please clarify "victim" in this context. Sure some people exploit science and develop a swampy water balloon that they fool us into thinking is a tomato, but they also develop diagnostics, therapeutics, surgeries, transportation, energy, and this funny thing we are tapping on as we attempt to communicate with each other here at GHMB, etc. All of the latter arguably dwarfs the former, especially if you're an educated consumer.
I admit, though, that I'm not that enthusiastic about boarding a pilotless jet or even a driverless car.
> Life is individual and at least to some extent
> human life is special or valuable and any belief
> system that excludes this is dangerous. Any
> belief system that destroys individuals is an
I've often wondered about that. Ants and bees don't seem to complain that much, and they've been around for millions of years.
In fact, one could argue that an excess of individualism can put the stability of civilization in jeopardy.
> It's not "science" though that is a threat so much
> as the individuals who think they understand it.
Again, one could just as easily argue that individuals who do NOT understand science are at least as much of a threat. Many of them are dead from smoking cigarettes, denying warnings of fires, earthquakes, tornados, and floods, not understanding physics enough to appreciate the risk of going 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, not having that pain on the lower left abdomen looked at by a scientific professional...
> Most people don't understand metaphysics so it's
> impossible to understand the science which springs
> from it.
This may be true.
> They don't know what they know and they
> believe they know everything.
Very often true.
> We are truly homo omnisciencis.
> So we use science as a weapon and
> impose experiment on people.
Not sure what that's referring to.
> What effect will a
> generation exposed to violence have on the future?
Humans have been exposed to violence since the launch of the gene pool. In fact, one could argue that we are more sheltered from violence now than at any other time in human history. How many times has the USA news showed a dead body in recent decades? I don't think the problem is that we're "exposed" to violence as much as whether someone's upbringing endorses such violence, e.g., at home, etc. But I recall several studies (science again, sorry) that showed no correlation between a violent human and their exposure to violence on TV, movies, news, etc. It's more often due to the person getting the crap beat out of them as a child by a parent or the neighborhood bully. For the most part, that's not science's problem.
> What effect will stealing from people by
> injecting water into their food have on "public"
> (read this individual) health?
That's a good question, but that's not a reason to presume the answer to the point of vilifying science for pre-crime.
> How about we spend a few generations digging resources out
> of the earth and burying them in landfill?
To what dug out, and buried, resources are you referring?
> What happens if we deny an education to people in the
> inner city for three generations and don't hold
> the officials responsible?
Good question, but I don't see a strong link to science.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?