day no. 16,278: science must have an origin and an eschatology

"We are discussing whether we know enough, as responsible citizens, to put such powers into the hands of men who may be deceived or who may be deceivers. I conclude that we do not... Not content with the endowment of research, they desire the establishment of research; that is the making of it a thing official and compulsory, like education or state insurance; in short, they want a new kind of State Church." -- G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils

Science may not account for sin, but it still cannot escape it. A scientist can be tricked or a scientist can a be trickster; and as is often the case, he can often be a bit of both. In other words, a scientist may be duped or one trying to dupe others. The scientist who presupposes that he has no presuppositions, for example, is doomed before he even begins. However, the scientist who knows what he presupposes and picks through the data based on its ability to support his presupposed beliefs is doomed in the end.

Science is not neutral. It may claim to be, but in doing so, it is anything but neutral in its insistence on its neutrality. Science cannot start from a place of insisting that there should be no starting places for the same reason that no one else can. You cannot begin with the conclusion that beginnings and conclusions should be avoided.

Knowledge is not from nowhere. It comes from somewhere with the intention of going somewhere else. In other words, it must have an origin story and an eschatology.

Science cannot be mandatory. It isn't consistent enough to enforce. It proves itself wrong too often to be relied upon. To make science the standard for legislation is to make "change" the standard of stability. It's nonsense. By that standard, you could be found guilty of enforcing yesterday's laws. Standards do not evolve, but science does. Standards are based in reality and science is based on perception. This is why science makes for bad politics and even worse religion. It cannot promise anything because what it knows could change. That is the best thing about it when employed well and the worst thing about it when applied poorly.