autogyro wrote:Religions are constructed to manipulate and control, which is why science can be described as a religion. It is the most powerful source of human manipulation ever seen.
Short answer: science is not a religion because you are actually encouraged to come up with your ideas and challenge the established hypotheses.
Actually, the purpose of science is to understand and, hopefully, predict stuff other people hadn't ever imagined. Eventually, and because the verbs you use are transitive, you are partly right: one of the things you can do with science is manipulate and control "nature", because you have a shallow understanding of it.
However, there is one crucial difference: science doesn't tell you what to think. No, really, it doesn't. Have you met any catholic priest that didn't believe in the bible as gospel? A rabbi that questioned the Tanakh? An imam that had a similar position with respecto to Qur'an?
It turns out that some people (very few, though) don't accept that the spin of the electron has a quantum nature. And they spend their efforts trying to build a successful classical analogue. They might be successful, who knows. Of course, this is very off-track, so this is difficult to accomplish unless you have a fixed position at a University already.
Other people, in the past, thought that this quantum non-determination was caused by our ignorance, and proposed a system of "hidden variables". It turns out that these very guys found that, in some kind of experiments, normal QM and hidden-variables QM would behave differently. What do we do now? We do the experiments! Down with beliefs! Up with experiments! In this case, the normal QM won.
Finally, for the galaxy dynamics we observe to be explained by General Relativity, we need to add lots of "dark matter". Heck, maybe even some dark energy as well. This makes some people feel uneasy (that includes me, by the way). So a few scientists are trying to come up with an alternative theory... even based in Newtonian physics and not relativity! The acronym for this is "MOND" (modified newtonian dynamics).
The procedure for an alternative "religion" goes as following: you don't like the current state of affairs, so propose your pet theory. You compare your pet theory to available experimental data, and maybe it matches. Then, you go on and try to come up with an experiment where mainstream and alternate theories would differ. Someone will hopefully feel compelled to check who's right. In the case both theories predict the same thing, and if they are not mathematically equivalent (e.g. Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics are the same stuff with a different coating), you choose the one that's mathematically nicer or simpler.
However just like all other religions, science also tries to tell the truth and gives its followers a path to follow in their natural human demand for answers.
Most of the time it fails miserably like all religions.
Simply put they are all crutches for human fears and vulnerability.
There is something fundamental for religion not required in science: FAITH. You must have faith that someone resurrected, or that god will send a prophet (or maybe he already sent it), or that you will take the shape of another creature after death. You must have faith in unprovable events.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr