Science? or the sciences?

The first science was epistemology, and it's still the foundation of all the sciences. The fact that we have scientists (plural) means, necessarily, that we have sciences (plural). Only if there were but one scientist on earth could there be such a thing as science (singular).

Quotes and comments;

1. 'The main goal of modern science is to have the knowledge required for prediction, planning and control.' [1.]

- Is there some monolith called science? Is there only one model of science? Should we refer to science or to the sciences? These are some of the questions I want to look at in this post.

Modern science is heavily financed by the State because the political elite want to find out how to achieve total control over the populace. They want to know how best to implement their plans. They want to know how to predict how the masses will respond to any new program. They want to be able to control any negative response by the public to what the elite do. They want scientists to tell them how they can achieve a complete mastery over the rabble; how they can micro-manage every aspect of their lives.

Given all this does anyone wonder why the average person might fear science. (It's not science he should fear, but scientists; and the knowledge scientists pass on to the elite.) There's a steady drumbeat in the press about an irrational fear of science, and its noteworthy that this is the way any opposition to particular programs is described.

e.g. we read something like ''people have no reason to fear science,'' never something like ''People have no reason to fear scientists." The first is hard to refute, while the second is easy to refute; all you have to do is give some examples. Science is presented as infallible; when we know scientists are not. Science is presented as wholly good; while we know scientists are not. Science is presented as harmless, while we know scientists are not.

The talk is always of science, and rarely ever of scientists. Science can then be idealized, glamorized, celebrated, defended, etc. - while this is so much harder to do with real human beings. (e.g. the ones who devote themselves to creating weapons and surveillance techniques, etc.)

The public is told in daily editorials that 'science' can answer all questions. The fact is the average scientist can't even tell you if he loves his wife or his kids. We all know scientists can't answer all questions; anyone whose talked to a few of them knows that. Science is built up into a god-like figure who transcends mere mortals. (Clearly a god made in man's own image.)
This pomposity reminds me of Genesis, and the claim that if Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, "ye shall be as gods....'' I think that what the Serpent meant by this cryptic statement was that ''ye shall be able to answer all questions for yourself."

The myth of science is that there is only one answer to every question, and that this answer must be naturalistic, explaining things solely in terms of matter in motion. i.e. there is no other way of looking at things; if an answer does not conform to Materialist orthodoxy it is simply, undeniably false.

e.g. you aren't allowed (if you want to wear the noble name of science) to say something like, ''well, in terms of the creationist model...." or ''in terms of the theistic model'' or ''in terms of the Buddhist model,'' this kind of qualification is ruled out. One doesn't even talk in terms of the materialist model, one just assumes that the materialist model is correct. e.g. one doesn't say ''in terms of the materialist model x is correct'' but instead one says ''x is correct''.

One isn't even supposed to say something like, ''as far as we know x is correct'' or ''provisionally speaking x is correct'' or ''until proven false we believe x is correct''. This kind of context and qualification is considered giving in to the creationists. The scientist is presented as someone who possesses certain knowledge; absolute knowledge. If you come to his office he can open a drawer and take out a fact to present you with.... and only he can do this. In this glorified model of science the scientist deals in objective truth, while everyone else does not.

Part of the plan to control men is to get them to accept this idealized (idolized?) model of science, to accept the vision of science as an infallible god. This god will then be presented as the source of everything the elite want the public to believe. When editorialists scold the public, and tell them they must accept what all government approved scientists say, they're in effect saying the public must accept what the elite say. As long as the elite hold the purse strings, the scientists will do their bidding, and act as their mouthpiece.

One way for people to protect themselves from this agenda is to speak in terms of sciences, not science; to speak of scientists and not science; to speak of science as a verb and not an noun, and to speak of theories instead of facts. It may not seem much, but it's better than nothing, and might be more effective than people think.

Notes;
1. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.6
- the book can be read online at Chalcedon.edu (The book was originally published in the 1960s as I remember, but is still valuable.
2. You notice that it makes little sense to refer to a fear of the sciences. (I don't recall ever seeing the phrase.) This tells me that sciences is preferable to science.