Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?

[Atla]

It's saying that your epistemic model has been contradicted. It's wrong (because it's incomplete).
If your epistemic model was unfalsifiable then it necessarily means it's complete/perfect e.g an exact replica of the original.

Which is mathematically impossible given the current (un-augmented) capacity of your brain.

Also because you are a sub-set of the universe and therefore you can never have complete knowledge.

Yes it's saying something about the model. So it's not a physical law in itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law#Description

And I am pretty sure I just gave you my definition. An unsurmountable limitation. A variable we can't control/manage.

Taking measurements through empirical means a.k.a uncertainty reduction is information gathering.

Umm.. "unsormountable", "limitation", "variable", "we", "control/manage", "uncertainty", "reduction", "gathering" are all highly arbitrary, epistemic concepts. Why not use something more ontological?

Yes human knowledge is limited, but far more limited than what you wrote. The human brain/mind doesn't work by storing bits, bits are abstractions that don't occur in nature.

Yes it can. An abstraction IS a reduction/model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression

Here is a stored abstraction (lossy compression) of Earth: https://maps.google.com

By "data" we usually also mean an abstraction. Do you think that information can literally be stored in matter/energy (maybe as bits or as qubits or whatever), or do you think that information is a certain abstraction about matter/energy / about reality?

[TimeSeeker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law#Description

From the very link:
* "Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe"
* "Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them"

Can you give me an example of a "law" that meets the above criteria? And I will happily point to its contingencies.

Umm.. "unsormountable", "limitation", "variable", "we", "control/manage", "uncertainty", "reduction", "gathering" are all highly arbitrary, epistemic concepts. Why not use something more ontological?

Yes human knowledge is limited, but far more limited than what you wrote. The human brain/mind doesn't work by storing bits, bits are abstractions that don't occur in nature.

Because you have no access to "ontology" except through your "epistemology" which is a function of your perception/mind/consciousness.

But by all means - if you figure out how to bypass your epistemology/perception/mind/consciousness - tell me how.

By "data" we usually also mean an abstraction. Do you think that information can literally be stored in matter/energy (maybe as bits or as qubits or whatever), or do you think that information is a certain abstraction about matter/energy / about reality?

Yes. Information is stored in objects. Empiricism is the process of extracting (partial) information from objects.

You can call it "data" or a "piece of information" (from the nomenclature outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ).

Or you can call it "cheese". Linguistic distinctions are immaterial - they are only made for convenience. This line of reasoning leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Is a lossless copy of Beethoven 9th symphony "identical" to the original? To me it doesn't matter - I reject the law of identity because I accept the modal and temporal dimensions.

The I (the body) from 1nanosecond ago is not the same as the I (the body) now. Something most likely changed. I (the epistemic mind) just don't know what.

Some blood cells moved. My fingers moved (on the keyboard). Some processes took place in my nervous system. All of those fall into the bucket of epistemic uncertainty.

I don’t know anything. Because my knowledge is always stale. I am just good at guessing (predicting). Sometimes.

[Atla]

From the very link:
* "Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe"
* "Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them"

Can you give me an example of a "law" that meets the above criteria? And I will happily point to its contingencies.

The laws of physics meet the above criteria.

Because you have no access to "ontology" except through your "epistemology" which is a function of your perception/mind/consciousness.

But by all means - if you figure out how to bypass your epistemology/perception/mind/consciousness - tell me how.

Yeah well duh, of course we access "ontology" through our "epistemology", everyone who actually understands what they are talking about is already taking that into consideration. That didn't really address my objections.

Yes. Information is stored in objects.

Yeah there we have it, like most people, you don't know what information is, and percieve the same world twice.
An object and it's information are the same thing said twice. You can't take something, duplicate it and then store it in itself.

Empiricism is the process of extracting (partial) information from objects.

Word salad.

You can call it "data" or a "piece of information" (from the nomenclature outlined in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information ).

A physical system and the information it carries are one and the same thing. Just as a particle doesn't have properties, a particle IS it's properties.

[TimeSeeker]

The laws of physics meet the above criteria.

No. They don't. If you care to be more specific and mention a law - I will care to prove you wrong.

A physical system and the information it carries is one and the same thing. Just as a particle doesn't have properties, a particle IS it's properties.

And that's a very useful CONCEPTUAL MODEL. But recursively you don't know what a "particle" is or what a "property" is any more than I know what "information" is.

I can CONCEPTUALISE information. Because I can CONCEPTUALISE probability and entropy. I can MEASURE information. And that's good enough for me.

You can say that "information" is my "faith-belief". The thing I take on zero evidence. The belief I keep for its utility. The belief about which I am dogmatic about. The belief which you can't convince me to give up.

Unless you provide me with a better MENTAL MODEL (a.k.a TOOL).

Yes. I care about utility far more than I care about "truth"

And I happen to have a criterion for what a "better tool" looks like. It predicts better....

So I am far more transparent about the criteria by which I am willing to change my mind than you are?

[Atla]

No. They don't. If you care to be more specific and mention a law - I will care to prove you wrong.

Well okay now I'm curious. Let's say the Schrödinger wave equation, or any other equation from current physics.

And that's a very useful CONCEPTUAL MODEL. But recursively you don't know what a "particle" is or what a "property" is any more than I know what "information" is.

Not what I said. What we DO know is that a particle and it's information are not two things but the same thing conceptualized twice. Whatever the conceptualizations are, we shouldn't mix two together because that makes no sense.

I can CONCEPTUALISE information. Because I can CONCEPTUALISE probability and entropy. I can MEASURE information. And that's good enough for me.

Probability and entropy are also abstractions of abstractions, you seem to be go going in circles.

You can say that "information" is my "faith-belief". The thing I take on zero evidence. The belief I keep for its utility. The belief about which I am dogmatic about. The belief which you can't convince me to give up.

Unless you provide me with a better MENTAL MODEL (a.k.a TOOL).

Yes. I care about utility far more than I care about "truth"

And I happen to have a criterion for what a "better tool" looks like. It predicts better....

So I am far more transparent about the criteria by which I am willing to change my mind than you are?

Oh okay then. I just assumed that on a philosophy site we are more after truth, not after better tools.
Even so, I think it's a bad idea to call falsification a physical law. Bad tool, confuses things.

[TimeSeeker]

Well okay now I'm curious. Let's say the Schrödinger wave equation, or any other equation from current physics.

Is an equation a law? Ironically - the output of the equation is a probability distribution.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... py#History

The principle was first expounded by E. T. Jaynes in two papers in 1957[1][2] where he emphasized a natural correspondence between statistical mechanics and information theory

Thanks for making my argument for me

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it --Richard Feynman

General Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics therefore Schrödinger's wave equation is not universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

There is a good reason my username is Time Seeker

Not what I said. What we DO know is that a particle and it's information are not two things but the same thing conceptualized twice. Whatever the conceptualizations are, we shouldn't mix two together because that makes no sense.

Why not? I have two conceptual models for Earth. One is oblate, one is flat. Guess which concept I USE to make a coffee table? The legs of my coffee table certainly don't take the curvature of the Earth into account...

Probability and entropy are also abstractions of abstractions, you seem to be go going in circles.

You seem unable to tell the difference between circular and recursive reasoning. Recursion is another name for an algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

Oh okay then. I just assumed that on a philosophy site we are more after truth, not after better tools.
Even so, I think it's a bad idea to call falsification a physical law. Bad tool, confuses things.

Well that's just the thing with Philosophy. Since you are looking for truth - how will you know if/when you have found it? Surely you must have some a-priori knowledge/description of what truth looks like? What it smells like? what it tastes like? How it behaves? You know - what PROPERTIES "truth" has? Where did you get these a-priori knowledge from if you haven't found truth yet? Speculation?

Otherwise you are searching for something you can never find. How do you search for grombunf when you don't know what grombunf IS?

A search algorithm[1] that never completes is exactly the halting problem [2] in computer science. So yeah - my model is USEFUL

So to answer the threat's question: "Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?". Because it works.

Some humans care about utility more than they care about truth-seeking.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_algorithm
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

[Atla]

Is an equation a law? Ironically - the output of the equation is a probability distribution.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... HistoryHow are laws represented if not as equations?

Yes this one has a probability distribution output (if you measure it, the distribution "collapses" though.)
It's currently assumed that it's genuine quantum randomness, but it might also be apparent quantum randomness. We may never find out.

You merely forgot to mention how these don't apply to the Schrödinger equation:

* "Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe"
* "Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them"

Thanks for making my argument for me

What argument?

General Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics therefore Schrödinger's wave equation is not universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

There is a good reason my username is Time Seeker

Both GR and QM are universally applied but one or both may be incomplete, probably both. If anything it's probably GR that's less fundamental than QM.

Why not? I have two conceptual models for Earth. One is oblate, one is flat. Guess which concept I USE to make a coffee table? The legs of my coffee table certainly don't take the curvature of the Earth into account...

That's totally not what I said. It's a bad analogue anyway, but with information you were basically saying that the Earth is two Earths but it's one Earth, and it's both oblate and flat at the same time.

You seem unable to tell the difference between circular and recursive reasoning. Recursion is another name for an algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

I think I can tell the difference, which is why I'm saying you are going in circles. You say there are some abstractions of abstractions (like stored information), and there are other abstractions of abstractions (like entropy and probability), or maybe abstractions of abstractions of abstractions (entropy of information), therefore such abstractions are ontologically real things.

Well that's just the thing with Philosophy. Since you are looking for truth - how will you know if/when you have found it? Surely you must have some a-priori knowledge/description of what truth looks like? What it smells like? what it tastes like? How it behaves? You know - what PROPERTIES "truth" has? Where did you get this a-priori knowledge from if you haven't found truth yet?

Otherwise you are searching for something you can never find. How do you search for grombunf when you don't know what grombunf IS?

A search algorithm[1] that never completes is exactly the halting problem [2] in computer science. So yeah - my model is USEFUL

So to answer the threat's question: "Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?". Because it works.

Some humans care about utility more than they care about truth-seeking.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_algorithm
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Again I have to state the obvious. Of course by "truth" we can only mean the best/simplest/most probable guess about reality. We can never know anything for sure, and we can also not go outside the framework of human knowledge / human understanding.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes this one has a probability distribution output (if you measure it, the distribution "collapses" though.)
It's currently assumed that it's genuine quantum randomness, but it might also be apparent quantum randomness. We may never find out.

And at the exact moment the distribution collapses and you "know" the position of the particle... it's no longer there anymore. So your knowledge becomes stale instantly and not transferrable/generalizable to your next measurement.

Your prediction for your next measurement remains probabilistic (uncertain).

You merely forgot to mention how these don't apply to the Schrödinger equation:

* "Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe"
* "Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them"

Both GR and QM are universally applied but one or both may be incomplete, probably both. If anything it's probably GR that's less fundamental than QM.

I think you are bending the accepted meaning of the word "universal"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability.

A "universal" law that has a "domain of applicability" sounds like a paradox to me? The universe doesn't have categories. Only human minds do.
So how can two "universally applicable laws" contradict each other in a universe without contradictions? What is different?

Scale and complexity! That's what's different. General Relativity operates at cosmic (macro?) scale. QFT operates at quantum (micro?) scale.
The mere mention of complexity puts you back on computer science/information theory turf ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation )

As it stands we do not understand the phenomenon of gravity in terms of quantum physics. Only in terms of classical physics ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity )

That's totally not what I said. It's a bad analogue anyway, but with information you were basically saying that the Earth is two Earths but it's one Earth, and it's both oblate and flat at the same time.

I am saying that I have multiple conceptions for Earth. Each has different utility-value associated with it. I choose which conception (model) to use depending on the context.

I think I can tell the difference, which is why I'm saying you are going in circles. You say there are some abstractions of abstractions (like stored information), and there are other abstractions of abstractions (like entropy and probability), or maybe abstractions of abstractions of abstractions (entropy of information), therefore such abstractions are ontologically real things.

Yes. I need abstractions. My mind is not wired to cope with the factorial complexity of the universe. I don't think yours is either.

The "real/not real" and "exists/does not exist" distinction are of little pragmatic or epistemic utility to me.

Again I have to state the obvious. Of course by "truth" we can only mean the best/simplest/most probable guess about reality. We can never know anything for sure, and we can also not go outside the framework of human knowledge / human understanding.

It sounds to me that you subscribe to this mantra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Then what are we disagreeing about?

[Atla]

And at the exact moment the distribution collapses and you "know" the position of the particle... it's no longer there anymore. So your knowledge becomes stale instantly and not transferrable/generalizable to your next measurement.

I don't think so, decoherence takes time, if you "know" (= correlate with) the "measured" thing, you can know that it will probably still be there for a while. Which is why you can slow down (or theorethically freeze) small quantum systems in time, using very repeated (or continuous) measurements.

I think you are bending the accepted meaning of the word "universal"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

No, the accepted meaning of the word "universal" is this "bent version", when it comes to physical laws. I thought that was commonly understood, physical laws are better and better approximations that we seem to be able to apply unviersally right now.

A "universal" law that has a "domain of applicability" sounds like a paradox to me? The universe doesn't have categories. Only human minds do.

They are both describing the same world, but they are both incomplete. And GR seems to be describing the "classical" world of spacetime, which may be an illusory little island within the quantum world, a very special case of quantum behaviour. Gravity doesn't work well with QM, but gravity might not be fundamental.

However this illusory little classical island is still 100+ billion light years in size, it's what we see normally so we automatically fall into the illusion that this is the more fundamental picture. Right now we only have the technology to observe the underlying quantum behaviour on very small scales.

I am saying that I have multiple conceptions for Earth. Each has different utility-value associated with it. I choose which conception (model) to use depending on the context.

Yes but "stored information" is two different conceptualizations used at the same time. Like Earth is both a planet and a ball of rock, there the Earth is literally two things, and the planet-ness is encoded into the ball of rock, or the ball of rock-ness is encoded into the planet.

Yes. I need abstractions. My mind is not wired to cope with the factorial complexity of the universe. I don't think yours is either.

The "real/not real" and "exists/does not exist" distinction are of little pragmatic or epistemic utility to me.

Yes yes, but when you reify your abstractions, you introduce additional components that are simply not there.

Then what are we disagreeing about?

Lot of things apparently

[TimeSeeker]

I don't think so, decoherence takes time, if you "know" (= correlate with) the "measured" thing, you can know that it will probably still be there for a while. Which is why you can slow down (or theorethically freeze) small quantum systems in time, using very repeated (or continuous) measurements.

The more qualifiers/conditionals you add to your argument (freezing - e.g microkelvin energy states, defining a fixed sampling interval) the more you are defeating your own notion of 'universality' and contriving a lab experiment.

You'll have a hard time finding any microkelvin energy states anywhere in this Solar system that aren't artificially made by humans.

No, the accepted meaning of the word "universal" is this "bent version", when it comes to physical laws. I thought that was commonly understood, physical laws are better and better approximations that we seem to be able to apply unviersally right now.

Cool. I reject the currently-accepted version and insist on a higher standard - my own definition. Universal means no contingencies. A domain-specific "law" does not meet my criteria for "universality".

They are both describing the same world, but they are both incomplete. And GR seems to be describing the "classical" world of spacetime, which may be an illusory little island within the quantum world, a very special case of quantum behaviour. Gravity doesn't work well with QM, but gravity might not be fundamental.

False equivalence. They are describing different ASPECTS of the same world. But scale and complexity matter. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You call it illusion, I call it emergence. And it is a function of computational complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

You have to account for holism and reductionism.

Yes but "stored information" is two different conceptualizations used at the same time. Like Earth is both a planet and a ball of rock, there the Earth is literally two things, and the planet-ness is encoded into the ball of rock, or the ball of rock-ness is encoded into the planet.

No. they aren't USED at the same time. They are stored (in my mind) at same time. They are USED at different times.

If you object to how we currently do things because of the incompleteness of our knowledge, you are welcome to contribute unification?

If you disapprove of my conception of the Earth, then maybe you can unify all the geodesic standards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

Lot of things apparently

Good thing opinions hold no weight over empirical results then ?

[Atla]

The more qualifiers/conditionals you add to your argument (freezing - e.g microkelvin energy states, defining a fixed sampling interval) the more you are defeating your own notion of 'universality' and contriving a lab experiment.

You'll have a hard time finding any microkelvin energy states anywhere in this Solar system that aren't artificially made by humans.

It's not about temperature. It suppresses/freezes (or speeds up) the time evolution of quantum systems.

Cool. I reject the currently-accepted version and insist on a higher standard - my own definition. Universal means no contingencies. A domain-specific "law" does not meet my criteria for "universality".

No unified theory exists right now. Okay you are saying that therefore there are no laws of physics. But also say that falisifcation is a law of physics.

False equivalence. They are describing different ASPECTS of the same world. But scale and complexity matter. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You call it illusion, I call it emergence. And it is a function of computational complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

You have to account for holism and reductionism.

The world doesn't have "aspects". There is only the world. Also, you can't say in one comment that the world doesn't have categories, and then say in the next that it has aspects.

Scale doesn't truly matter here - that's a form of magical thinking. Also, quantum behaviour doesn't have an upper limit / classical behaviour doesn't have a lower limit.
Complexity doesn't matter here - that's a form of magical thinking. Complexity here is just an abstraction we make.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: that's very straightforward magical thinking.
I called it illusory, not illusion.

Emergence: hard emergence is the standard type of magical thinking of some clueless "scientific" types. Something extra comes out, emerges. Haha. Did you know extra stuff can't be created.

Function of computational complexity. How many idiotic words can you string together to delude yourself into thinking that you have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

No. they aren't USED at the same time. They are stored (in my mind) at same time. They are USED at different times.

If you object to how we currently do things because of the incompleteness of our knowledge, you are welcome to contribute unification?

If you disapprove of my conception of the Earth, then maybe you can unify all the geodesic standards? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

You just don't get what I was saying.

Good thing opinions hold no weight over empirical results then ?

Yes you have no idea about empirical results, otherwise you would realize that almost nothing you write makes sense.

You know what I'll leave you to your idiotic beliefs about information and function of computational complexity.

[TimeSeeker]

It's not about temperature. It suppresses/freezes (or speeds up) the time evolution of quantum systems

You are speaking of quantum-evolution. Then you are necessarily speaking of quantum entanglement. Which is only a stable phenomenon at very low temperatures.

Temperature is a measurement of energy state e.g entropy. It is all about temperature. Even open space is too warm to sustain entanglement.

No unified theory exists right now. Okay you are saying that therefore there are no laws of physics. But also say that falisifcation is a law of physics.

Yes. I am adapting my language to yours (as best as I can). You know - because we are optimising for communication. At least - I am.
If you want me to maitain a consistency then you don't get to accuse me of "word salad" without giving credence to the possibility that YOU lack the theoretical grounding required to understand my words.

Unless you pre-suppose you have complete knowledge. In which case... Cool

The world doesn't have "aspects". There is only the world. Also, you can't say in one comment that the world doesn't have categories, and then say in the next that it has aspects.

You don't know that beyond speculation. Parallel universes? Multiverses? Where is all the dark matter?

Again - language. Without a ToE everything is a model. A model is domain-specific. That is - it has applicability limits.

Scale doesn't truly matter here - that's a form of magical thinking. Also, quantum behaviour doesn't have an upper limit / classical behaviour doesn't have a lower limit.

Yeah. Complexity theory/complexity science is a form of magical thinking Says he over THE INTERNET. Which is applied distributed/complexity theory :lol:
Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle also magical thinking? Because you can't have complete knowledge some properties will ALWAYS appear "magical"/"emergent". I don't like either of those words anymore. Lets call them Godly properties. I think that word will trigger you far less. Or more. We'll see...

Complexity doesn't matter here - that's a form of magical thinking. Complexity here is just an abstraction we make.

I don't know. I don't have enough information to make any positive claims. You seem to know though? Do you have some evidence for your claim?

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts: that's very straightforward magical thinking.
I called it illusory, not illusion.
Emergence: hard emergence is the standard type of magical thinking of some clueless "scientific" types. Something extra comes out, emerges. Haha. Did you know extra stuff can't be created.

So you have pre-supposed the universe is deterministic? That's ironic - because a deterministic universe is also non-entropic. Not sure you can dig yourself out of that hole...

Function of computational complexity. How many idiotic words can you string together to delude yourself into thinking that you have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

Tell you what. Every time you accuse me of idiocy I'll point you to the a relevant and NON-UNIVERSAL theory Because from where I am standing you don't know what you don't know.

You just don't get what I was saying.

That's very possible. English is a non-regular language. It is open to interpretation so it's on both of us to navigate around its pitfalls.

In an attempt to navigate the symbol-grounding problem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem ) why not try a regular language? Express your ideas in Python? Lambda calculus? Mathematics?

And if you wish to discuss metaphysics - I ground my metaphysics in information theory. I don't know if it's 'right' or 'wrong' but at least I can tell you how to measure it. So we can come to a consensus.

Yes you have no idea about empirical results, otherwise you would realize that almost nothing you write makes sense.

And you pre-suppose that it should make sense? I can explain it to you - if you tell me which parts are confusing.

Spoken (non-regular) languages are a tool for COMMUNICATION, not truth-seeking. You need Mathematics and high-order logic for precision...

But you know - the very fact that you confuse language with empiricism... I don't know what to make of that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Science is just making observations, taking measurements, manipulating and controling material (experiments), and constructing models using symbols. Anybody can do it. It is nothing more than a complex variation of flipping burgers at McDonald's or playing basketball.

Sure, some people are more skilled at it than others. But some people are more skilled at flipping burgers or playing basketball. It is that way with any work.

Yet, we are told of the "predictive power" of science. We are told about the "wonders" produced by engineers and the "miracles" produced by modern medicine.

Scientists will insist that they are just professionals doing an honest day's work for a paycheck just like a carpenter or an air traffic controller, I am sure. But more often than not members of the non-scientific public are treated like clueless, incompetent inferiors who are far away from the truth/reality that scientists are intimate with every day. It is not much different from the attitude that governments, militaries, law enforcement, corporations, Silicon Valley, religious leaders, etc. often have towards the general public.

It is not elitism that I am talking about. I am talking about how science and scientists are treated like powerful gods, misunderstood prophets, etc. It sounds like scientists are the few chosen to perform some sacred rain dance that they occasionally share with the mass of commoners on the outside.

I thought that the Enlightenment and its most prized creation, modern science, were supposed to liberate us from magical, mythical thinking and self-anointed priests. I thought that science--rigorously peer-reviewed, self-correcting, holding-the-highest-standards-of-objectivity science--is above all of that.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that science has its moments when it is purely the pursuit of objective knowledge, wisdom, etc. Those moments are extremely refreshing and intellectually satisfying. But religion, casual personal research, journalism, etc. have those moments too. But no opportunity is ever missed to remind us of the breathtaking superiority of science compared to those alternatives. Once again science and scientists are--mostly through myth--elevated to the status of powerful gods, misunderstood prophets, etc.

Keep in mind that all those modern technologies that you, my friend, rely on every day, is the result of science.

Ever been sick, Science!
Your car, Science!
Your home, Science!
Your computer, Science!
Your phone, Science!
Your food, Science!
Flipping burgers and playing basketball, Science!
Journalism, carpenters, personal research, air traffic controller, Science!

As a matter of fact there's not much that you're into today that doesn't have to thank science.
You should go live in a cave, eat any grubs and roots you can find, and wipe your arse with leaves to understand why you need to thank science!
Trust me, you'll come running back to science in no time!

[IstillBELIEVEinPOMO]

So to answer the threat's question: "Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?". Because it works.

Some humans care about utility more than they care about truth-seeking.

Flipping burgers at McDonald's works and has utility.

But nobody talks about the "power" of flipping burgers at McDonald's.

[Greta]

So to answer the threat's question: "Why is science treated like something magical, mythical, enchanted, etc.?". Because it works.

Some humans care about utility more than they care about truth-seeking.

Flipping burgers at McDonald's works and has utility.

But nobody talks about the "power" of flipping burgers at McDonald's.

A fart has utility as does an atom bomb.

Are you going to tell us that the explosions are of equal force?

Why play word games? You know that just because the same word "utility" can be applied to two things that the utility need not be anywhere close to equal. Thus, I can only assume that you have an agenda are are not prepared to debate in a straightforward manner,