Science Does Not Replace Religion

[Acting Like Godot]

I was wondering whether you'd get my point about economics. Then I felt that perhaps the point could be illustrated by a couple of jokes about economics.

I googled "jokes about economists", here's a site (Profession Jokes - Economists), and a few jokes for your enjoyment. I hope that these jokes, in a right-brained sort of way, will illustrate to you what I was saying.

The dependency of economics on making assumptions is illustrated in this joke:

Three people are stranded on a small island. One is a physicist, one is a circus strongman, and one is an economist. After a few days of surviving on fruit, they discover a cache of canned food, and they have to decide how to open it.

The physicist says to the strongman "Why don't you climb that tree, and smash the cans down on the rocks, and burst them open?"

The strongman says, "No, that would spatter the stuff all over. I can open the cans with my teeth!"

The economist says "First, we must assume that we have a can opener."

How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

Two. One to assume the existence of ladder and one to change the bulb.

Next 2 jokes illustrate the very inexactness of economics, which is why I say it cannot be regarded as a science:

An economist returns to visit his old school. He's interested in the current exam questions and asks his old professor to show some. To his surprice they are exactly the same ones to which he had answered 10 years ago! When he asks about this the professor answers: "the questions are always the same - only the answers change!"

Why has astrology been invented? So that economy could be an accurate science.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

How familiar are you with Lovecraft?

More than the average bear, less than the average Cthullhu nut.

No, value itself is not a subjective quality. It is defined, objectively, as a measure of how much a person is willing to pay for a good or service. This does not change from person to person.

As it measures the perception of individuals or their aggregates, it varies from person to person. Thus, the value of a particular good or service varies from person to person because of their subjectivity.

Economics, like any other branch of knowledge, takes certain axioms as a priori and then builds a system from that basis. The measurements used to track the variables in the system do not make the system itself objective. And the original assumptions about human behavior are just that: assumptions.

Americans, for the most part, have no problem with miles and miles of billboards advertising toothpaste with naked ladies. We act in this way because we are told that our survival is largely due to us spending money on crap, which goes back to the Keynesian model of economics.

The map is not the territory. We could easily choose a different set of axioms and build a system off of that.

Prove it. Last I heard, the soul weighs about 3/4ths of an ounce.

Can I buy one from you? I could always use a spare.

Definitions are a necessary means for communication. If you think that theology is cavorting with witches, and I think it's studying old bones, then how are we supposed go agree on a conclusion?

I "put things into little boxes" because I don't want people to need a personal, revelatory experience in order to have any idea what I'm talking about.

This has nothing to do with Knowledge. This is just a dictionary.

I don't have a problem with clear communication. Words stand for real world phenomena, but do not replace them. Reason can not go beyond words. Knowledge, however, can and does go beyond the symbols we use for reality.

People don't know what you are talking about without the "personal, revelatory experience". They may agree or disagree, but the argument is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. It might win you the master-debater award on this forum, but that's about it.

Neither have I. I have written as much here.

Speaking of dictionaries.

I have written about falling in love here. I am a highly intuitive person, and have much difficulty in being reasonable.

However, as jsam remarks tangentially above, we are not a reasonable people. We rely on perceptions that are more likely to be false, than true, because it's easier and more convenient. We rewrite our memories to our whims. I "reduce everything to its lowest possible meaning" because meaning is necessarily a cultural bias. I remove my biases, as much as possible, in order to extract what is real, not what is imagined.

If I wanted to make you imagine something, I would write fiction. (I'm doing that, btw.)

Considering what jsam pointed out and what you are saying here, it is all fiction. What are "you" without the genes that made you or the society that conditioned you? An object? A machine? I doubt it. Is that what you take for being real?

The willingness to be ignorant is, perhaps, the most abhorrent choice human beings can make, in my view: it defies the very nature of being human and being alive: to explore, discover, and grow.

I agree, but if you look too far into things, you're liable to be looking at the backside of your own head.

Are you? Have I mischaracterized what you've said?

We feel/experience (Observe) first. Then we come up with a logical explanation afterwards (by hypothesizing what it happened, testing that hypothesis in an experiment, analyzing the results of the experiment, and drawing conclusions from that analysis).

Is that so farfetched? Is it so wrong that you are a practitioner of science even as you emphasize the important of religion? It is not a incorrect to be; I applaud it.

I am fine with being a practitioner of science. I think your definition makes every human experience into the scientific method, though.

That's almost cute, to ascribe the binary number system to the I Ching. And even to think that the I Ching as a source of divination. Hah. The I Ching, first of all, deals with hexagrams built from symbols for Yin/Yang, and draws a system of meaning. That Chinese bibliomancy later used the I Ching as a ouija board does not mean the I Ching itself, or the philosophical system it was written about, was a source of divination or magic.

Nice try, though.

Is it possible that you do not understand everything and other people's point of view may in fact be valid even if you don't 'get it'?

I got this relationship between the I Ching and the binary system from Leibniz, who invented the latter (along with differential calculus). He was quite excited about this discovery. I bet he said, "Ha" as well. This is from Wikipedia:

"In his article Explication de l'Arithmétique Binaire (1703) Gottfried Leibniz writes that he has found in the hexagrams a base for claiming the universality of the binary numeral system. He takes the layout of the combinatorial exercise found in the hexagrams to represent binary sequences, so that ¦¦¦¦¦¦ would correspond to the binary sequence 000000 and ¦¦¦¦¦| would be 000001, and so forth."

Yin and Yang, the pa kua, chi kung, the five elements, the merdians. These are all part of Taoist metaphysics and they were used in what could be called magic.

This is probably your best example on what you meant. I originally thought you were misquoting Clarke, but I see you are not actually referencing him. I'll speak to this at the end.

Actually, I'm referencing Ouspensky.

[Liara Covert]

Magic begins in the mind with belief that it exists or is possible or not. Each person has subjective perception that evolves in different ways.

I don't sense words are necessary for definitions or communication. That appears to be a human created illusion that I would place in a parallel category to space and time.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Magic begins in the mind with belief that it exists or is possible or not. Each person has subjective perception that evolves in different ways.

I assumed we weren't talking about real, Crowley-style, Hermetic magic. If we are, then I'd have to retract my earlier statement.

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

I don't sense words are necessary for definitions or communication. That appears to be a human created illusion that I would place in a parallel category to space and time.

Please communicate to me without using words. That includes HTML.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Perhaps for the same reasons that religion is still in use, even though it "regularly trips up".

(For that matter, the same could be said for science).

Correct. Religion works. It works too well, in many cases, but it works.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I did not say that economics is ineffective.

I was merely pointing out your error, where you said that economics is a great predictor of human behaviour. You are incorrect because economics does not predict that man is a rational actor - it assumes that man is a rational actor. All economists know this. It's just an assumption that they work with.

I'm sorry... let's hand-wave that you're right. What exactly do they do with this assumption? Do they sit in lecture halls and federal halls and talk about how brilliantly rational people are? Or do they actually act and, oh, I don't know... predict human motivation?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In fact, there is a niche area of economics (quite outside mainstream economics, of course) where researchers are trying to study the implications of the irrationality of human beings, on economic systems. I'm referring to the fields of behavioural economics and behavioural finance. in these fields, economists do not make the assumption that human beings are rational, and instead take it that human beings will from time to time behave irrationally.

In any case, I feel you are correct overall. I am more experienced, it seems, with behavioural economics and the edges of economics than I am with mainstream economics. How odd.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Economics is not a science. Generally speaking, hypotheses in economics are not capable of being subject to the scientific method.

Wrong. We're working on this. See Edward Castronova.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you like, you could say that economics is a pseudoscience. The word need not have derogatory implications (although I suspect that it does, for you). If you prefer, you may regard economics as a social science, in the same sphere as history or geography or psychology. But definitely not science, as in physics or chemistry.

It has always ridden the line.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The map is not the territory. We could easily choose a different set of axioms and build a system off of that.

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Can I buy one from you? I could always use a spare.

Well, you'll have to figure out how to catch it, first.
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Weight of the Soul

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I don't have a problem with clear communication. Words stand for real world phenomena, but do not replace them. Reason can not go beyond words. Knowledge, however, can and does go beyond the symbols we use for reality.

Correct.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

People don't know what you are talking about without the "personal, revelatory experience". They may agree or disagree, but the argument is nothing more than an exercise in semantics.

Of course. What else is an argument about definitions? That doesn't make it an invalid argument. It just makes it one most people aren't equipped to handle.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

It might win you the master-debater award on this forum, but that's about it.

Already have the award, thanks.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Considering what jsam pointed out and what you are saying here, it is all fiction. What are "you" without the genes that made you or the society that conditioned you? An object? A machine? I doubt it. Is that what you take for being real?

I would disagree with your word choice and replace "society" with "environment", but otherwise, I would answer: nothing. I am the sum of my genes' fabrication and my environment's conditioning. I exist as a logical conclusion; all that I know and believe comes from the saturation I have of my environment and the responses of the results of my genes to it.

Oh, certainly, there's more to it than something as simple as that. That's what makes biology and psychology fun. But in response to the spirit of your question, I simply am, and am nothing special.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I agree, but if you look too far into things, you're liable to be looking at the backside of your own head.

Is there something wrong with the backside of your head? Does it look like Medusa? Did Voldemort graft himself to it?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I am fine with being a practitioner of science. I think your definition makes every human experience into the scientific method, though.

Many, yes. The scientific method, like logic, is a formalization of an everyday act. Logic formalizes common sense to make more powerful statements about things that aren't so obvious. Science formalizes the notion of repeatability and causality to accurately identify how things work.

When a computer stops working, a technician will take it apart and replace its components piece by piece until it starts working again. This is science. It is isolating the real cause, so that the problem can be identified and a solution applied. The solution is applied science.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Is it possible that you do not understand everything and other people's point of view may in fact be valid even if you don't 'get it'?

Of course. However, if I don't get it, it's the other person's job to explain it to me.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I got this relationship between the I Ching and the binary system from Leibniz, who invented the latter (along with differential calculus). He was quite excited about this discovery. I bet he said, "Ha" as well.

So why is Yin 0 and Yang 1? Is it phallic imagery?

What is the sum of Enthusiasm (000100) and Grace (101001)? If it were a binary system, it should be Fire (101101). However, these additions are nonsensical, because the hexagrams are not numbers. They are combinations of six items drawn from a set of two items.

That's like calling Kabbalah-based magic the origin of the base 10 system, because there are (usually) 10 sephirot. Nevermind that it's just as logical to realize that, hey, we have 10 fingers. And that the concept of dualism is slightly different from the concept of toggling on and off.

Leibniz formalized the binary number system. If you actually read the bit you quoted, you'll see he did not make the same error you did: he took all the credit for himself, and then said, "Oh, and my system is universal."

And there is no evidence that Leibniz practiced magic.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Yin and Yang, the pa kua, chi kung, the five elements, the merdians. These are all part of Taoist metaphysics and they were used in what could be called magic.

I've always been partial to the Chinese Element system. It's so much better than the Greek one. No nonsense like Aether.

But seriously... you're reaching. This is non-sequitur after non-sequitur. You've made your overall point already, and it is correct; technology is dreamed before it is made. Slogging through the details isn't helping your case.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Actually, I'm referencing Ouspensky.

Well, that would explain the confusion.

[David21]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

First, I happen to own that book. It's good.

Second, you have not quoted Greene stating that E=mc^2 leads to "the universes energy [is] constant". Greene states what I do: mass and energy are interchangeable.

Third, you have not shown how "constant" becomes "eternal and infinite".

Fourth, e=mc^2, when divided on both sides by "m", leads to e/m=c^2. Not m/e=c^2. This is an important distinction.

Let's assume you're right, for a moment. What, exactly, should stop us from taking a similar, but different equation... and applying the same logic? I can't imagine a thing, so let's do it.

Let C be the square-root of 1.5813. For anyone keeping score, this is approximately 1.25749. (Please note that this is a direct analogue to the speed of light, squared, which is roughly 8.9 x 10^15 meters-squared per seconds-squared.)

Let M be a quantity of American Dollars.

Let E be a quantity of European Union Euros.

E=mc^2.

E/M=c^2

Constant, infinite, eternal euros? I think not. I really don't. The European Union is doing good. But it's not doing that good.

---



With all due respect, why not?

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. What is a "way", and where does "forward" go?



You seem to have an odd idea of what a hypothesis is. Hypotheses are "brought into reality" when someone comes up with it. It doesn't take a century.

Perhaps our definitions differ. Please define hypothesis?



Perhaps I should be asking, is ACIM "the way forward"? If so, why? If not, why not?

---



This is true enough.



And what do each of we 6 billion persons seek?



I have not heard any of those names banned. I've seen books at my local university bookstore as authored and translated from those authors prominently displayed.

---



In all things we tend to keep the bits we like and discard that which we do not like. But you say this:



It has nothing to do with philosophy.



Is there anything we should take seriously? Why?

You sound like some one who works in the field of science.

I feel that science seeks to find an overall truth that probably doesn't really exist. Science isn't acceptable and understandable to all. I don't really believe that God would base the workings of existence on something that only a few can appreciate. I doubt that science has a place in the next reality after this.

Perhaps I have been too harsh. Maybe science is a way forward. Perhaps we are travelling forward whether we realise it or not. Perhaps just existing is moving forwards.

Lets not play with words here. When I say "forward" I refer to the direction that we are all consciously or unconsciously moving - towards God. When I say "way" I mean path or method. I think you knew that.

Hypothesis, the way I see it, is something that has been thought about but not yet proven. I do think that things can take a very long time to come into existence. I'm sure someone considered relativity long before Einstein, but never did anything about the thought to bring it into reality so we can try and appreciate it.

As for ACIM, I don't know. I'm beginning to doubt a lot recently.

I guess the ultimate aim is to come to a decision that we all agree on. Once there is nothing to question, there is nothing to answer and we will be one.

I need to question whether this type of discussion is of any use to us. I can't help but wonder whether there is a bit of ego (by its most common definitions) behind some of the replies on this topic. I don't really believe that it matters what we say here, we will never come to a conclusion here on this plane. However, I guess it is all part of the learning process.

Isn't silence the best way forward? It is when we are silent that we will hear God's voice.

Perhaps what is, just is. Perhaps we will discover it one day whether we argue or not.

Please let me know what you think

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by David21

You sound like some one who works in the field of science.

Heh. No, I hold the lofty position of Junior Web Developer at a startup. But I've spent the entirety of my teenage life arguing about how science is very bad no good evil, so I was exposed to plenty of refutations.

Originally Posted by David21

I feel that science seeks to find an overall truth that probably doesn't really exist.

This is possible. Some of the core assumptions of science conflict with some of the core assumptions of other systems of thought, including Subjective Reality.

Originally Posted by David21

Science isn't acceptable and understandable to all.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by David21

I don't really believe that God would base the workings of existence on something that only a few can appreciate. I doubt that science has a place in the next reality after this.

Being as I have not been to the next reality, I cannot answer that.

Originally Posted by David21

Lets not play with words here. When I say "forward" I refer to the direction that we are all consciously or unconsciously moving - towards God. When I say "way" I mean path or method. I think you knew that.

I am not playing with words. Not everyone thinks, believes, or knows as you do, David21. I cannot expect to understand your perspective unless you help me to do so. It seemed evident to me that I was misunderstanding you, so I decided to ask, rather than continue to make mistaken assumptions.

As such, I have two follow-up questions:

1) What is God, and how do we know if we're moving toward God?
2) If we are all moving towards God, and thus forward, then how can anything not be a "way forward"?

Originally Posted by David21

Hypothesis, the way I see it, is something that has been thought about but not yet proven.

I would point you here: Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't think to do that, last time.

Originally Posted by David21

I do think that things can take a very long time to come into existence.

Here is a place we disagree about the nature of existence. A matter of definition, really. Existence, for me, includes anything that has been thought about or considered. A thought can exist, because it was thought.

Originally Posted by David21

I guess the ultimate aim is to come to a decision that we all agree on. Once there is nothing to question, there is nothing to answer and we will be one.

Perhaps. That's a lofty claim.

Originally Posted by David21

I need to question whether this type of discussion is of any use to us.

I'm using it to flesh out my own ideas and my capabilities in communicating them.

Originally Posted by David21

I can't help but wonder whether there is a bit of ego (by its most common definitions) behind some of the replies on this topic.

Of course. Few are the enlightened.

Originally Posted by David21

I don't really believe that it matters what we say here, we will never come to a conclusion here on this plane. However, I guess it is all part of the learning process.

Will you ever come to a conclusion if you do not start moving towards one?

Originally Posted by David21

Isn't silence the best way forward? It is when we are silent that we will hear God's voice.

I shall quote a poem I read the other day:

Originally Posted by Raph Koster

Peace shouldn’t be quiet, clouds soft and pliant,
A mellow sky scene in blue.
Peace should be blaring, a jazz band past caring,
A squabble of children and you.
The clangor of pots, your eyes full of spots,
Buttercups growing in dew.
Peace is invention, it’s sustained attention,
It’s chemistry going kaboom.
It’s racing of go karts and artichoke hearts
And farming in Kalamazoo.

It’s silence as well, but the silence of bells
The moment they still for a few;
An aftershock sound that echoes around
And gives way to rush and to hue.
It’s not smug inertia, safe from what hurts ya;
Pain is what gives us the glue.
It’s temperate intemperance, all quantum events,
Mosquitoes buzzing canoes.
A whole raucous party, that’s peace’s priority:
Space to be scattered and true.

Raph's Website » The Sunday Poem: Peace

And then I shall quote from the Twelve Tenets of Shh!

Originally Posted by Josh

The necessity of the alternative of silence for all commands is crucial in understanding that most of the time silence itself is not an ideal action or state of being, but is always the best alternative.

the_sinistral: The Twelve Tenets of Shh!

Feel free to click through.

Originally Posted by David21

Perhaps what is, just is. Perhaps we will discover it one day whether we argue or not.

And perhaps we must argue in order to find out. Or perhaps we must not argue to discover it. Who knows? If you will not argue, then you will not. If you will, then you will.

The important thing is to choose. And then, to choose again.

[David21]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Heh. No, I hold the lofty position of Junior Web Developer at a startup. But I've spent the entirety of my teenage life arguing about how science is very bad no good evil, so I was exposed to plenty of refutations.



This is possible. Some of the core assumptions of science conflict with some of the core assumptions of other systems of thought, including Subjective Reality.



I disagree.



Being as I have not been to the next reality, I cannot answer that.



I am not playing with words. Not everyone thinks, believes, or knows as you do, David21. I cannot expect to understand your perspective unless you help me to do so. It seemed evident to me that I was misunderstanding you, so I decided to ask, rather than continue to make mistaken assumptions.

As such, I have two follow-up questions:

1) What is God, and how do we know if we're moving toward God?
2) If we are all moving towards God, and thus forward, then how can anything not be a "way forward"?



I would point you here: Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't think to do that, last time.



Here is a place we disagree about the nature of existence. A matter of definition, really. Existence, for me, includes anything that has been thought about or considered. A thought can exist, because it was thought.



Perhaps. That's a lofty claim.



I'm using it to flesh out my own ideas and my capabilities in communicating them.



Of course. Few are the enlightened.



Will you ever come to a conclusion if you do not start moving towards one?



I shall quote a poem I read the other day:



And then I shall quote from the Twelve Tenets of Shh!



Feel free to click through.



And perhaps we must argue in order to find out. Or perhaps we must not argue to discover it. Who knows? If you will not argue, then you will not. If you will, then you will.

The important thing is to choose. And then, to choose again.

Sometimes when people come across science it goes straight over their head. But I guess you are right that science is understandable if you are assuming all can get to grips with the very basics e.g. atomic structure. However, quite a few people find relativity challenging. As you may know, relativity is based on quantum physics and now scientists are proposing that the universe works along these lines.

I've heard a lot of psychics say that people philosophise on the other side, much as we are now, but I've never heard them say that scientists are probing the ethereal realm with their complicated devices. From what I have read in books like "Life after Life" and others that follow a similar theme, science cannot restrain the afterlife within its very restricting laws. This is where I draw my opinion from about how science may have no place on the other side.

Regarding the words; I did hope that I used vocabulary that was and familiar to all, but I guess you are quite right, words can take on different meanings depending on the context they're in and the way that they are perceived.

What is God? This is the question to end and start all questions! I personally do not know what God is. And I don't know whether we are moving towards him, but, rather foolishly, I put a little faith into books like "A Course In Miracles" and hope that we are all the same, all equal and essentially all one. It's a question that I'm going to have to spend the next seventy years of my life wondering. I have contradicted myself. If I truly believe that we are all moving towards God, then how can I not believe science is a way forward? My mistake. I guess on initial observation it would seem that science is moving away from God in that it often seems to be replacing religious thought that has existed for millennia. If, however, science allows us to learn more about ourselves, perhaps it isn't so bad? I guess I allowed some of my own emotions to influence my answers. Often I feel that scientists are pompous and pretentious and that irritates me. I shouldn't let my emotions govern my thinking, though.

I don't usually trust a source like wikipidia - just about anyone could have authored the answers within its pages.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe to argue isn't so bad. But I can't help wonder how much of it is lead by the ego. The ego doesn't exist in the next realm. I suppose we have it here to learn.

Perhaps a conclusion is a fate for the ego. If there was no start there would be no conclusion. We have to come to conclusions when considering many things. But actually having to consider something is down to the ego. When we are apart of God, there is nothing to consider, no goal to be reached, no conclusion to be made - as ACIM suggests, nothing unreal exists, nothing real can be threatened, so why make defences and arguments.

And you are right, we must choose to question or not....

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by David21

Sometimes when people come across science it goes straight over their head. But I guess you are right that science is understandable if you are assuming all can get to grips with the very basics e.g. atomic structure. However, quite a few people find relativity challenging. As you may know, relativity is based on quantum physics and now scientists are proposing that the universe works along these lines.

*sighs* Relativity is not based on quantum physics. It'd be a little hard for it to be, since relativity was proved before quantum physics was remotely established.

Originally Posted by David21

I've heard a lot of psychics say that people philosophise on the other side, much as we are now, but I've never heard them say that scientists are probing the ethereal realm with their complicated devices.

Or they could not be telling you about it. Or they didn't see it. Or there is no other side. What can you prove? Convincingly? To another?

Originally Posted by David21

From what I have read in books like "Life after Life" and others that follow a similar theme, science cannot restrain the afterlife within its very restricting laws. This is where I draw my opinion from about how science may have no place on the other side.

You speak of science as if it were a person. Please try to avoid metaphors like that.

Originally Posted by David21

Regarding the words; I did hope that I used vocabulary that was and familiar to all, but I guess you are quite right, words can take on different meanings depending on the context they're in and the way that they are perceived.

The world is simply too uneducated for any set of vocabulary to be truly universal. We will be translating and re-interpreting ourselves and others until the end of our lives, or until the end of our willingness to listen.

Originally Posted by David21

What is God? This is the question to end and start all questions! I personally do not know what God is.

May I suggest you (1) speculate and (2) decide for yourself? That's what I did.

Originally Posted by David21

And I don't know whether we are moving towards him, but, rather foolishly, I put a little faith into books like "A Course In Miracles" and hope that we are all the same, all equal and essentially all one.

It is not wrong to put your faith in others' words. It is wrong to leave it there, unquestioned and unconsidered. This is why biblical literalism (taking the Bible to be literal and utterly true) is stupid and wrong.

Originally Posted by David21

I guess on initial observation it would seem that science is moving away from God in that it often seems to be replacing religious thought that has existed for millennia.

I might point out my original post in this thread, which addresses this very point.

Originally Posted by David21

If, however, science allows us to learn more about ourselves, perhaps it isn't so bad?

If you're the sort who can ignore the people and really look and the idea in and of itself, the idea of science, perhaps you will see what I have been shown: that science is just a formalization of what we already know.

Originally Posted by David21