Tammy: Okay i think i get your point by this phrase:
If the latter, then my point simply relates to anyone who does it - treating science like a religion and deriding anyone who disagrees with the mainstream. Not everyone does this - and I imagine that most scientists want the questions in order to test their theories. But there are people who DO do this.
I can only add two things: First off i really really hope you would take a minute or two flipping through a scientific article in nature some other reputable place, and notice how the authors tries very carefully not to step outside what their ideas/data warrent. One reason is that doing so will seem awfully silly when you are at a conference presenting your work, and the "hallelujah" conclusions are demolished by the audience (which will happend because in the audience there will most likely be some of the researchers who have contrary ideas), a second reason is that you will most certainly get it back from peer review with a big fat "REJECTED: the data does not support conclusion" (most peer reviewers are boored out of their skull and want nothing else but a quick and easy reason for rejecting your work; a bad conclusion is like send from heaven!) and thirdly scientists tend to have integrity like everybody else.
Secondly is about the comparison. If you honestly feel "new light" is a neutral term for changing your mind, well, by all means. But when you write things like this:
- Science is like some religion (in particular the WTS and similar sects), in the sense of 'new light'. You are supposed to believe what is 'true' right now, even though it could be wrong, until such a time as something new is learned.
It sound an awfull lot like you are comparing science with religion with respect to new light. In particular in the light of this comment:
- I do not dislike or invalidate science itself. Only the people who treat it like a religion - hence causing a similarity between science and religion
it is ironic, because surely you must appreciate that using an analogy most here consider very loaded to express your view of science is saying science is like some religion. (which you actually wrote verbatim).
I think that was all. by all means, if you find some jerk on teh interwebs who speak outside what the evidence warrent, call him out! redicule him!
I just think you will have a really, really hard time finding clear examples in the established scientific community (fringe notwithstanding, you can find a guy with a phd who will say anything), and if you are not talking about the scientific community, then use the english language and instead of writing: "science is like some religion" write "a few members of the scientific community which does not represent the majority tend to speak outside what the evidence warrent which is something i associate with certain forms of religion".
I would like to believe you are not being unclear on purpose and have a better command of the english language than me. As your sentence was, YOU was speaking outside what the evidence allowed, surely THAT is an irony you appreciate.
