Is it Science or Eschatology?

 

sciencereligion

What we know about our world, our physical world, and what we currently believe about the universe, comes from the decades, even centuries, of scientific inquiry. Even those things we’ve learned about ourselves, humans, whether it’s physical or psychological, come from these same people, over time, and we refer to it as scientific investigation, Most reading here understand the scientific method so I won’t go into the specifics of that here, but it’s becoming more and more interesting to me that those that may make some claim of scientific credulity when what they may be proposing is not reality based science, but eschatological.

What is science and what isn’t? We’re made to believe that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal, that it must be something we should believe because, no one has an agenda, do they? We can look simply at what has been called the Grievance Study Hoax, or more preferably, Sting, to show that this is true. Here, three people wrote twenty papers, none of which were remotely based on anything scientific, to the point where they manufactured data, and seven out of those twenty were actually published. One paper was actually a chapter from Mein Kampf, and the authors changed the focus from Jews, to feminist theology. Published.

This is not a charge against academia, most of whom do their best when performing investigations in whatever field, provide the best data they are able to based on published protocols so that others, within the same field, may determine whether or not the inquiry, and the conclusion (if there is one) is valid or not.  What this is about are those that have already formed an opinion and that anything they read that affirms their bias, is good enough. We’re all guilty of this in one way or another.

We all like to believe that what we think we know is true and even when there’s indisputable evidence to the contrary, some will never accede to those facts. I’m not advocating skepticism on everything, but if there are questions, shouldn’t those be asked and answered?  Instead of just accepting every proposition, maybe we should spend less time believing that just because there’s a PhD after a name that we are incapable of challenging anything said.

It’s becoming tiresome. The reason, I think is that most people are incapable of thinking about any subject critically. We are too inured to believe and that’s due to a fact of our educational system: Critical thinking is no longer a part of any curriculum. It takes time to have children stop and think about what they are being taught and even more time, to answer those questions that may arise.  It’s easier to teach to the test than engage those young minds to be able to think for themselves. We’ve raised at least the last two generations that are incapable of independent thought. They’re ready to believe whatever they are told.

So we find it’s easier to actually perpetuate a con in that anything that sounds remotely reasonable is in fact true, when it can be,  using critical analysis,  found demonstrably false.We live in a time when we are told there is more than one truth and that truth is defined by personal experience and not that which may be proven otherwise. Believing something to be true, without proof, is not science. And poor scientific inquiry, in an attempt to justify a conclusion falls within the same scope. We should be aware of anything that has the appearance if being agenda driven.

 

4 thoughts on “Is it Science or Eschatology?

  1. This is a good post that actually moves into philosophical skepticism. Although I don’t know much about Focault (sp>) apparently he believed there was not an objective reality so anything goes. This helped produce the scholarship we see where one’s own experience can be written up as a scholarly work and then published. We used to just call those personal essays but now they are academic papers called autoethnographies! It’s crazy.

    Like

    • I’m a little familiar with Foucault and I always thought of what he said was a bit over the top. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but not something I’d want to take much time investigating. I might be disappointed in what I found.

      Like

  2. Published April 15, 2019: The erotic’ is a power that can be drawn upon to resist oppression, pursue change, and build libratory communities. I extend Lorde’s notion of the erotic to include the shared erotic joy of queer youth and their queer resistive practices. This paper is based on three years of participant observation at the Military Educational Institute (MEI), a militarized charter school in Southern California. Students at the MEI actively challenged and resisted heterogendered, and militarized culture and structure through the shared pleasure of chasing games, dancing, and queer public personas. This article contributes to critical military studies by outlining avenues of youth resistance to militarized education and expands feminist theory by illustrating how erotic power can be employed for collective resistance of militarism and militarization.

    Huh?

    Like

Leave a Reply to gretchenskepticreview Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s