Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think I made the same case on the LL awhile ago that in some ways "Science" is a belief system that people put their faith in to solve their problems and hope will make their future better.

Then you have no understanding of what science is. If you use the word 'science' in its loose, colloquial meaning, then it becomes almost meaningless. Cooking as a science? Bah. You are playing the most transparent semantic game, implying the most strict definition of a word and then arguing from its other common uses.

'Science' is *not* a belief system. If anything, it is a system of skepticism where for the acceptance of any idea, the validity of that idea has to be carefully demonstrated in a controlled, reproducible fashion. And no idea of science, other than the basic idea of the scientific method itself, is sacrosanct. Every concept, every postulate, every conclusion in science is subject to re-evaluation, modification, and even abandonment in the light of new evidence. It is a continuously self correcting attempt to discover some glimpses of the workings of nature.

The basis for nuclear weapons (and nuclear energy) as well as bridges, automobiles, central heating, high rise buildings, and a crapload of modern technology and conveniences are based on science but are not science -- they are engineering. Science solves no problems, it simply studies what is.

Of course, if you wish to speak of the 'science' of washing dishes, you are free to do so. But it is intellectual dishonesty to start from there and then claim properties for true science. Hell, it's as phony as basing your religious arguments on the 'fact' that 'money is some people's religion'.

--Pete