The gods of science!

When you watch a game of football, you always cheer for one of the two teams. Why? Because, you are either with team A or team B. In very very rare cases people watch football. In nearly all the cases football is subsided by team belongings.

Same goes for everything in life. You are either with one idea or the other. You are either with one party or the other. Family life is not much different as well. Your father or mother love all their children, but they always love one sibling more than the other. Their apparent love for all of their offsprings, is a self-deception, crafted under social effects and pressures. The objectivity of parental love vanishes like infatuation, the moment their favorite child, enters a conflict with the less appreciated child. Understanding the fact of unequal, parental love, suddenly makes unquestioned parental love a dogma. What is a dogma? Well, dogma is something that we never question, despite all its shortcomings. The word dogma is normally reserved for religious beliefs.

For example, all sorts of religious dogma requires you to believe in the creation of the universe. Religious dogma narrows your thought or makes it unidirectional. You are required to believe that the universe came into being under the influence of intelligent design or as per God's will.

Now, a large part of humankind spends a lot of energies on proving the validity of intelligent design. But, there are those, who do not quite agree with this dogma. These are the people, who have other theories of beginnings of the universe. In general we can say that this group comprises of human beings with more scientific approach towards life and existence. Now, what is the scientific approach?

The scientific approach is a system of tests and experiments, intended to approve or disapprove a certain theory. Science is not about the existence of God or its in-existence.  Science is about understanding, how and why do birds fly? Science is about understanding, the reason, behind the provision of heat, by sunlight. Science is about entertaining uncertainty, until we attain certainty, backed by experiments and test results.

Science and dogma both start with a theory. But, unlike science, dogma is based on verbal and philosophical backing. Dogma forces you into believing the validity of a theory, without providing any proof. The best that dogma can provide you with, is circumstantial evidence. For example, the dogmatic method is to tell you that if a computer cannot come into existence, without human intervention, how could the humans come into being, without divine intervention? You can call it circumstantial evidence or twisted logic, or even reasoning. But, you cannot call it a proof.

On the contrary, science is all about proof. Yes, before getting to the proof, the scientists do also devise a theory and engage in reasoning. But, until unless there is solid proof, the theory remains a theory.

Science does not allow you to take things for real, just because Mr X said so. Mr X, might be right, but unless his words can be backed by experimental evidence, Mr X's ideas remain subject to doubt. For example, lots of scientists have spent lots of hours, contemplating, how the pyramids of Giza were constructed. There is a multitude of theories, about this construction, but until now, they are still theories.

On the other hand, believers of dogma, have definite answers, about the same, based on what one  book or the other says. Dogma does not require evidence. Dogma, relies on the word of mouth or divine revelations.

But, unfortunately, as of late, the scientific community has gone dogmatic. Now, you must be thinking that in all of the above-mentioned, I have been trying to set apart science and dogma, and now I am saying that science is dogmatic. This looks very twisted, right? But it is not.

As of late, scientists have seized to discover. All that they are doing, is to prove the validity of theories, evolved by other people.

A few hundred years ago, a scientist named Newton spun a theory about gravity. Let me just make it clear, my point is not to engage in proving that Newton was right or wrong. My point is to make you see the dogmatic nature of modern science.

Today's scientific community does not question the idea of gravity, as it was interpreted by Newton. Today's scientists take gravity as a constant. Today's scientists cannot operate, without Newtonian gravity. Today's scientists, believe in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Now if they would question or discard Newtonian gravity, Einstein's general relativity falls apart. All recent scientific work and discoveries will fall apart, especially in the field of physics, as soon as you start doubting Newton's idea of gravity.

I will not spell out my ideas about gravity, because this is not the purpose. I still entertain the idea that Newton could be right, but at the same time I have my doubts.

To understand the dogmatic approach of modern science, please look into the affair regarding cold fusion. For those, who do not know this fiasco, let me just tell you briefly. Fusion is the process, which takes place on the sun. Fusion is the combination of two atoms to produce enormous amounts of energy. On the contrary, fission is the process, which evolves enormous amounts of energy by splitting a certain atom.

Physicists have been busy spending precious public funds around the world, trying to recreate solar conditions, because dogmatic scientists think that fusion cannot take place until a certain temperature is reached. But a chemist in a certain university, successfully fused two atoms under ordinary conditions. Now that team of chemists, were also scientists, but as soon as they came out with their findings, the dogmatic scientific community took a very strongly-offensive pose against them. The scientists, who discovered such chemical fusion, were labeled as pseudo-scientists and charlatans. Why? Because, had they accepted the fact of chemical fusion, under ordinary conditions, a lot of accepted science, involving giant names, would had gone defunct.

Do I need to tell you that when a person raises voice against accepted dogma or religious belief, he/she is tagged as hieratic, which is the equivalent of charlatan or pseudo-scientist. During the discussion on cold fusion, I heard a lot of name calling by scientists, which reminded me of Catholics vs Protestants, and Shia vs Sunni. People did not bother discussing the possibility or merits of fusion under normal conditions, they just negated any mere chance of chemical fusion.

Now, I did not mention cold fusion as a singled out case, and neither did I mention it, because I am a follower of cold fusion fever. I just mentioned it to demonstrate the dogmatic approach of science.  If science and dogma do not differ in methods, then what is the point of going either way?.

Let's get back to the first example of gravity. Why are scientists busy in finding an independent force called gravity? Because the Bible and Quran of science, Newton's and Einstein's works, become worthless, as soon as gravity goes to the dumpster.

If science would had been scientific in methods, then the scientists might had been busy trying to understand and prove that gravity is not a universal force or form of energy, like electro-magnetism, but just a force resulting from the effects of centripetal forces on the bodies stationed upon rotating entities. Just stop the rotation of the earth and there is no gravity!

Once again, my point is not to ascertain anything. All I am saying here is that when we indulge in science, we should keep the dogma away. We should not assume, as a reality, that there is something called space-time fabric, although the Lord Jesus of science Einstein thought so.

We have to understand that the output of any mathematical calculation, always depends on the input data. So it is not the output that should matter. It is the input data, which we should question. We all know that scientists use a lot of assumptions, as input data, when kicking-off new methods.

So, when a religious priest starts telling me about the creation of the universe, he says: "God created this universe and then he created life on it", but as soon as I ask: "Where did God come from?" The only answer is: "God had always been there and will always be there". They say this,  because they are clueless, about the input data, which validates their creation dogma.

Same is the case with modern day scientists and science teachers. They assert Newton's authority on you before teaching you about Newton's work. For the priests of science, it is no longer important to apply scientific methods. All they care about is that you never even doubt the integrity of Einstein's findings. Because Newton and Einstein are the Jesus and Moses of science. Every damn science teacher tells you that E=MC2 is some divine phenomenon. But does the same teacher tell you that the value of C is an assumed value. Just as any Christian priest would tell you that Jesus was crucified, but will never tell you why? Because the day you understand the real reasons for crucifixion, that very moment you understand that it had nothing to do with the introduction of a new religion. It was all about social unrest and uprising against the Romans. The Romans had multiple gods and they least bothered about one more God of Jesus of Nazareth. Had it not been about mutiny, the Romans would had happily inducted the God of Jesus Christ in their own pantheon.

So, as long as science will not seize being dogmatic, we will never know the truth of existence. If you want to credit Newton, go ahead and do it, but please do not enforce his works as divine revelations. Otherwise, my better choice will be to join the real dogma party. At least they do not try to fake experiments.