Quote from: GMPoison on January 22, 2017, 05:55:31 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on January 22, 2017, 05:50:13 PM

Quote from: GMPoison on January 22, 2017, 05:23:03 PM

Not sure what you're getting at bringing religion into the conversation. ...

I think you probably are, but I'm not certain of this.

I might be, but I'm not certain either, which is why I asked...

I understood the argument, no problem. Here it is again.

One of the features of the new-age religion being pumped is that it tries to elevate 'scientists' to a priest class who cannot be questioned by mere mortals. I call them 'scientpriests.'

There is a bumpy patch here in that some scientists don't necessarily cop to the official dogma at all times. It's a particularly large problem for scientists who have tenure, or Nobel prizes, or are independently wealthy. Or are simply fans of the scientific method in general and have some ethical principles. They have the basic foundation to become heretics, and a fraction of these will not do so quietly and privately. This is why the new-age religion needs to criminalize 'climate skepticism'

In point of actual fact, about 50% of mortals have the basic capability to understand scientific principles well enough to see right through the fraud, and a small fraction of these peeps will do just that. Many others will make the right decisions about who is credible and who huckster whether because they bought-off, intimidated, or have extra-scientific philosophical elements at play.

Although ecclesiastical history is not my specialty, the whole new-age religion thing as it relates to 'science' has interesting parallels to the Cathlic reaction to the Protestant reformation in my understanding of it. The Catholics had their priests who were the only ones authorize to read the bible (or read anything at all for that matter.) Then Martin Luther came along and said 'Hey, this is bullshit! Anyone can and should read the fuckin' thing for themselves and think about it!'