ChatterBank2 mins ago
Science
42 Answers
Could the established society of scientists conspire to suppress information?
If for instance they had information that was relevant to the health of say 1 in 1000 people and they conferred to hide this knowledge for financial reasons, could it not also be true then (in that instance) that the same powers that be would be inclined to suppress information about God?
Think about it, how many millions of pounds are spent on research if only at the end of it all they found was God sitting on his chair eating a biscuit.
What would all these scientists do?
Join the clergy?
If for instance they had information that was relevant to the health of say 1 in 1000 people and they conferred to hide this knowledge for financial reasons, could it not also be true then (in that instance) that the same powers that be would be inclined to suppress information about God?
Think about it, how many millions of pounds are spent on research if only at the end of it all they found was God sitting on his chair eating a biscuit.
What would all these scientists do?
Join the clergy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, you could if you wanted, whatever floats your boat. LOL
I'm really only interested in the hypothesis that science colludes to conceal evidence for an unkown and unaccountable benefit for itself.
If scientists could seek to conceal evidence, if they could conspire even to discredit someone who seeks to break the code of silence then is it not feasible that if such a situation existed (or even exists) that the evidence of God's presence could be actively concealed.
Make a great film....
Not so much the Da Vinci Code as the Darwin code. ;-)
I'm really only interested in the hypothesis that science colludes to conceal evidence for an unkown and unaccountable benefit for itself.
If scientists could seek to conceal evidence, if they could conspire even to discredit someone who seeks to break the code of silence then is it not feasible that if such a situation existed (or even exists) that the evidence of God's presence could be actively concealed.
Make a great film....
Not so much the Da Vinci Code as the Darwin code. ;-)
Everton, for argument's sake and for the sake of our sanity, let's not go off at yet another tangent by talking about drugs when we're trying to discuss this. I can feel your rant about MMR coming on again, so let's just stick to the matter in hand, shall we? I can't see why science would want to conceal evidence of finding God, so what's your point? Unlike religion, science doesn't deny hard evidence. I would imagine the discovery of God would be seen as a great triumph - as Teddio says, a Nobel Prize in the offing, so just how would concealment be of benefit? And as Jake says, the discovery of God wouldn't be the ultimate answer anyway. Science would have to continue to research to find out how God was created - and then to discover how that creative source came into being - and so on, and so on.
Nor do I JTP, I actually view scientists as very honest I believe they speak the truth as they see it.
If you contend that such a community can conspire to conceal evidence about one thing then it stands to reason that they could conspire to conceal evidence about another.
Or not as the case may be.
Flip flop anyone? ;-)
If you contend that such a community can conspire to conceal evidence about one thing then it stands to reason that they could conspire to conceal evidence about another.
Or not as the case may be.
Flip flop anyone? ;-)
The main reason I believe in science rather than religion is because it has an absolutel ingrained self doubt. As soon as anyone discovers anything or proposes a new theory, thousands of boffins world wide are mobilised to repeat the experiment to verify or in some cases gleefully prove it wrong. I know the crushing can experiment they do at school I know what will happen, I know that it's been repeated millions of times I know the result. The whole midset of your scientist is such that they could never collude to any great extent. If for example that well known nuclear physicist Jake the peg actually cracked Quantum mechanics and the GUT and declared to the world that the whole lot was indeed run by a god type Geezer eating a hobnob, he would publish those results and the rest of the scientific community would set about repeating and verifying the theory/experiments. The meothos is important not the final result, that's just new info for future test books.
-- answer removed --
as Jake says, peer review is one of the things that underlie science; the idea is that when you come up with a theory other scientists will test it to destruction. There would be a certain amount of kudos in becoming 'the man who disproved God's existence' or whatever. Scientists are a diverse lot and often in competition with one another. Some are Christians and would be only too happy to announce if God had been uncovered living in a semi in Surbiton, even if other scientists were extremely put out.
123everton, you talk as if scientists were the only people who can think, reason and know things, and that, therefore, if they conspired all the rest of us would have no choice but to be duped.
I am not a scientist but I can explain to you why Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are both bunkum, whatever any clergyman or scientist might say.
I am not a scientist but I can explain to you why Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are both bunkum, whatever any clergyman or scientist might say.
I don't know if you've seen the news today 123everton, but it seems 29% of science teachers think creationism should be taught in school science lessons. (Not just discussed or acknowledged, but taught.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/23/ science-evolution-creationism-education
Not much chance of suppressing debate there. I wonder why they don't want to teach devil worship while they're at it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/23/ science-evolution-creationism-education
Not much chance of suppressing debate there. I wonder why they don't want to teach devil worship while they're at it.
That's worthy of a thread all of it's own.
I had'nt seen that story, I don't know personally what to think about it.
Some will tell you that all science is theory and that nothing is provable beyond a level of doubt (regardless of statistics etc) I suppose if creationism is treated as a scientific model it will be subjected to the same scientific rigours as other schools of thought, the proponents of either side of the debate should welcome the challenge.
I had'nt seen that story, I don't know personally what to think about it.
Some will tell you that all science is theory and that nothing is provable beyond a level of doubt (regardless of statistics etc) I suppose if creationism is treated as a scientific model it will be subjected to the same scientific rigours as other schools of thought, the proponents of either side of the debate should welcome the challenge.
No one ever claimed that ALL evidence science produces is incontrovertible - only that which is, indeed, incontrovertible. Scientific evidence is, however, always open to scrutiny.
If one group theoretically suppresses evidence, it doesn't follow that everyone within that field does the same. The Catholic Church suppresses evidence, and indeed manufactures evidence, so in your opinon, does that call into question the very basis of the ethics of all religion? That seems to be the criteria you're applying here.
If one group theoretically suppresses evidence, it doesn't follow that everyone within that field does the same. The Catholic Church suppresses evidence, and indeed manufactures evidence, so in your opinon, does that call into question the very basis of the ethics of all religion? That seems to be the criteria you're applying here.
It calls into question the ehics of the Catholic Church undoubtedly, but the Church has a doctrine it wishes to protect and in some ways (as espoused) goes about it wrongly.
Science on the other hand does'nt, so how can it be possible for an independent group of scientists to conspire, and collude to suppress the evidence of a anything in order to discredit another?
The answer of course is, it can't.
Science on the other hand does'nt, so how can it be possible for an independent group of scientists to conspire, and collude to suppress the evidence of a anything in order to discredit another?
The answer of course is, it can't.
