The myth of science

We've bred this weird figure that we call SCIENCE.

"It can't go wrong."

Yet we know that it does go wrong.

The justifiable rejection of harsh, organised churchianity, has thown out the Christian baby with the bathwater. The biblical statement, "I am the way, the Truth, and the light" is now a concept that's often subsumed by science. 

Do I tread on anyone's toes when I claim that no such entity as 'SCIENCE' exists? 

Individual scientists are often in error about what they say. There are moves afoot to offer Nobel Prize winnings to teams: individuals work in teams because they talk such twaddle that they need each other to stop themselves talking twaddle. 

The province of the hallowed, peer-reviewed study  is more or less accidental, a sort of determination by each one contradicting the other fellow's contribution and out of all these mutual contradictions there gradually emerges a solution that perhaps nobody saw ... and this is the one that is finally left. 

And it's held as a brilliant new discovery.

Jumping on it prematurely, Crick and Watson might declare, "There is no God, there is DNA and here we have a model of it." In scientific fear, and without careful analysis of the questionable conclusion, perfectly healthy women have their breasts removed faithfully on recommendations derived from this model. Perhaps they've drawn from this the idea that science is the new god, which alone can extend life?

Leakey vehemently defended his theory that the million year old remains of Lucy was proof that the origins of human beings was in Kenya. It may have been true, it may not have.

Yes, the individual scientist wants to be infallible. He will argue his case with other scientists, often hostilely, defending his pet theory. Why? Because he is basically insecure in his own knowledge. 

They are pursuing security, objective reality, and they are using the only method they know of ... looking at the past in order to predict a dynamic, unpredictable future. 

It is now known that we lead our existence in a field of energy. But focusing on matter and statistical data derived from it, the attempt is made to give themselves a surety that doesn't exist in the world. Yet ignoring the underlying energy field they are fundamentally wrongly focused to solve the problem that they are trying to solve.

Trying to discover a security in time, when there isn't any, a myth has been built ... that there is an entity called Science and it never alters. 

Yet this history of science is admittedly the history of exploded hypotheses. All the way along the line from the very beginnings of science, statements have been made that have been refuted in the next generation. We know that even today they are always finding new data to explode yesterday's theory.

There can't be many who still believe in the security that a science exists as a certainty when they read a report on the latest 'study' of past events. Because they'd be unaware that materialistic science is a structure  of pure guesses, dignified  by  its own  hypotheses.                        

And nowadays many closed mind medics believe that if they haven't been taught a method in their pharma-influenced medical school, anything that we've researched independently, despite its efficacy ... they close their ears to it as quack medicine that should be ignored.

"If I don't know it, it's not worth knowing," adhering to their enforced faith in pharma, is sadly the peculiar mantra of many of them.

This is the reason why corrupt businesses have monopolised on this myth of the infallibility of science, producing all manner of dark chemical substances, promising freedom from disease and extended life with their use.