>>366122>Anon you have to consider that the vast majority of people have fuzzy caveman logic brains and the only way you can get them to actually believe you (and you need to do that in order to get funding for research) is to fool them out of their anti-scientific brains with analogical exposition.Elitist drivel, i have a fuzzy logic caveman brain too, and also I'm not a priest, i don't care to dominate the minds of other people, i want the opposite, to remove mental shackles. Rulers that don't fund proper sciences will seize to be rulers. Funding has to be made compatible with science, not the other way around. Reality is what it is, and it will not bend for anybody.
>If you don't do that you end up with the tragedy of New Atheism where everyone paints their own headcanon on the objectives of secularism and no one cooperates to reach a unified body of thought once they've achieved the goal of discrediting religious orthodoxy.The tragedy of new atheism was that Hitch sided with US Neo-cons who propped up lots of religious fundamentalists that more than anything destroyed secularism in the ME, the one that looks like Ben Stiller said Zionist should use nukes which objectively makes him worse than the Iranian Ayatollahs who said nuking people is bad and Dawkins tweeted support for Eugenics which isn't just a incomprehensibly stupid political statement, it's also not compatible with a scientific world view. They became the stereotype of the evil scientists. The only decent one was Daniele Danette, he stuck to his guns and remained a science communicator that actually practiced what he preached.
I don't understand why you want a unified body of thought, how are you supposed to find anything new that way ? how do you keep clerical power from hijacking the authority of science ?
>Remember that science is corroborative, so if someone hypes people into delusions through the use of stories that enough people believe in, they will actually think it's scientific even when it has no actual backing in rigorous experimentation.So what ? hype and delusions don't work , rigorous scientific knowledge does work and shit that works wins every time.
>That's deep vulnerability in promoting scientific methodology as something that is able to stand as truth alone so you need to embed it in a metaphysics of some form to compensate for the fact that human beings don't really care for reality in our judgements.The scientific method is meant to be wielded like a blunt instrument to break down bullshit. Reality is hard to understand, there is nothing you can do to bridge the gap to intuition, that's always going to be a little unpleasant for anybody but a few geniuses whose brains match up with reality. But who cares, being trapped by superstitious fears is so much worse than the little bit of frustration you experience when you have a hard time understanding something in science.
> If you don't, you will have knowledge that is separated from human understanding, at which point people will throw up their hands at the bewildering technological world and want to return to being monkeys.Accurate knowledge will always be separate from human understanding, your head will always contain an inaccurate reflection of the world. People want technology they can control, if you try to use technology to control people, they try to return to monk. You are never going to make a techno religion that will make people accept being corporate serfs, that will always end with people throwing feces at you and smashing technology. Religious manufacturing consent for exploitation ended with agrarianism.
>If you don't think you need people, only knowledge, you don't have science, because science is about corroborating independent observations of the same phenomena, and if you don't have anyone observing with you, agreeing with you, challenging and correcting your assumptionsThis is me challenging your assumption that it is possible to combine science with pseudo religion on a societal level. You can have individual religious scientists, but on a societal level, you will never combine the laboratory with a cathedral. You can't combine a dark age mindset with science. If you insist on your video game reality you will not have science, you will have mystified people trying to write magic spells on scrolls, except that the rituals will be updated for the digital age.
>Be a scientist, a real scientific theoretician and skeptical inquirer, after the molds of Popper, Newton, de Montaigne, and Pyrrho. Don't be Bill Nye, an engineer; you are better than that.I don't care what you think about me, because you lost my respect, i think it's cruel to trick people into thinking they live in a video game, and because your post has this threatening undertone of being excommunicated from the community of retarded pseudo scientists. Why would i care, religion is unbearable to me regardless if you dress it up with technology metaphors, the word of god or code of god, same difference.