Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. Dogma comes from consensus. If you have dogma, you can have trust, because we trust "those many (consensus) smarter people who came before us and gave us our dogma." Dogma and trust are (in science) flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. Dogma comes from consensus. If you have dogma, you can have trust, because we trust "those many smarter people who came before us and gave us our dogma." Dogma and trust are (in science) flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. Dogma comes from consensus. If you have dogma, you can have trust, because we trust "those many smarter people who came before us." Dogma and trust are (in science) flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. Dogma comes from consensus. If you have dogma, you can have trust, because we trust "those many smarter people who came before us." Dogma and trust are (in science) flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone (believe they are telling us TRUTH) EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. If you have dogma, you can have trust. Those are flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone EVER?!?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. If you have dogma, you can have trust. Those are flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. Why would we trust anyone?

The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. If you have dogma, you can have trust. Those are flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that by design never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. If you have dogma, you can have trust. Those are flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.

Believing that "science" means "peer reviewed and approved opinions, and nothing else"

This is not what is taught as science. This is a part of what is taught in science. That was my point. Saying "nothing else" is completely false. It is actually a small (but very important) part laid over the top of very good science that is taught.

Scientists are absolutely taught to think for themselves (critical thinking). They are also taught bounds to that thinking for themselves. The process and requirement of critical thinking is absolutely taught in science. UPON THOSE PROCESSES are placed boundaries of trust and dogma.

Semantics

A very important distinction is not "semantics" it is clarity.

Brainwashing of what, exactly? Truth? False ideas?

Teaching trust is brainwashing. There is never a time when we should "trust" anything when it comes to anything we can instead apply critical thinking to. The concept of "trust" is brainwashing of everything. EVERYONE believes something different. NO ONE knows the Truth about anything. We all have different ideas. We all have seen different evidence, or the same evidence from different perspectives. The approach of science is to use empirical and repeatable methods, along with an earnest engagement in the debate process to get closer and closer to the Truth. It can't ever actually achieve Truth even when taken on in earnest because it isn't designed to. It is an iterative methodology that never ends.

Trust is at odds with the very core of that methodology. That is where the dogma comes in. If you have dogma, you can have trust. Those are flexible (but very important and strong) boundaries on an otherwise excellent methodology of the scientific process that is taught in school.

That is its power in fact. It is because it is such a good (and honest) method at getting closer and closer to the truth that it can be sold, through the fraud of dogma and trust, as "Truth" to very smart, critically thinking people.