That’s objectively not true. Just look at climate change. Science has been corrupted and in fact is worse than churches these days.
You are discouraged from deviating with the orthodoxy in a way that is not present in Christianity, because it is accepted and normal to have disagreements.
We have entire denominations showing it is acceptable to disagree. Science is still monolithic so far and has not even recognized its own errors yet.
Of course, but people are aware of that and form their own, go to another one, or just stop going to churches and pray to God themselves. I mean look around at all the negative comments about the Catholic Church and tell me people don’t acknowledge there is corruption in religion.
Look at science though. What is the alternative? You either agree with the mainstream or you are ostracized. Where are the groups of scientists who are totally committed to the scientific method? To reproducibility?
At best you might start your own blog, but you are easily dismissed by academics, and why would the average person trust you over all the other scientists who have “consensus”?
I read an article not long ago about a scientist who submitted a paper to correct someone else. They were attacked and belittled, and they said that they could not fathom someone outright fabricating the data. There is not a great awareness of the corruption in science yet. People simply take it on faith that everyone is seeking to discover the truth and being as objective as possible.
The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned."
Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad.
Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?
Not to mention germ theory.
The maths are made up to fit the theories.
That’s objectively not true. Just look at climate change. Science has been corrupted and in fact is worse than churches these days.
You are discouraged from deviating with the orthodoxy in a way that is not present in Christianity, because it is accepted and normal to have disagreements.
We have entire denominations showing it is acceptable to disagree. Science is still monolithic so far and has not even recognized its own errors yet.
Though I am a Christian, Churches are corrupt to the bone. That’s why there’s so many Christian Zionists.
Of course, but people are aware of that and form their own, go to another one, or just stop going to churches and pray to God themselves. I mean look around at all the negative comments about the Catholic Church and tell me people don’t acknowledge there is corruption in religion.
Look at science though. What is the alternative? You either agree with the mainstream or you are ostracized. Where are the groups of scientists who are totally committed to the scientific method? To reproducibility?
At best you might start your own blog, but you are easily dismissed by academics, and why would the average person trust you over all the other scientists who have “consensus”?
I read an article not long ago about a scientist who submitted a paper to correct someone else. They were attacked and belittled, and they said that they could not fathom someone outright fabricating the data. There is not a great awareness of the corruption in science yet. People simply take it on faith that everyone is seeking to discover the truth and being as objective as possible.
The logical fallacy in some of the argument here is: "Some sciences have flaws, therefore all science must be condemned." Just because some liberals have invaded climate science does not mean all climate science is bad, nor that all science is bad. Calling science monolithic and implying it is universally in error is an invalid argument. Also, all science is not a monolithic cult.
Added: I see this thread's been invaded by liberals using the kind of critical race theory logic that says math is racist because it was created by old white males.
Where did I say “all science must be condemned”? I’m saying that science has been corrupted to the point that you can’t simply trust that the community is putting out honest material and self-correcting.
When I say monolithic, I mean there is no such thing as branches or subgroups in the scientific community because they are all expected to be adhering to the scientific method.
The problem is that there are many examples of falsifying data to get conclusions because of grants, status, political views, etc.
So when you say you are a scientist, you are not able to differentiate yourself from the scammers, since they also call themselves scientists and say they are adhering to the scientific method. How is the average person supposed to tell the difference?