hmm

i think this is really interesting. someone on my chinese herbal medicine discussion group used the term "theocracy of science" in the context of people in the scientific (and other established) community[ies] bullying those who espouse "un-proven" beliefs. the idea is intriguing to me because i have several friends who are very scientifically minded, and have or plan to have carreers in one of various fields of science. i also have many friends and colleagues whose beliefs cannot always be reconciled or explained via the scientific body of knowledge of today. now, remember, the science of today always decries the science of tomorrow, and the science of yesterday is infamous for it's denial of the possibility of the science of today. and in that stream, i think is this argument. anyone so rigid in their beliefs to claim something is impossible are guilty of denying the existence of someone elses beliefs, so this fits everyone who would say that is true of what they think. but the point i'm going to is frequently those in spiritual circles are accused of bullying those outside their beliefs, calling them wrong, or whatever. but what i find interesting is that scientific circles are on many occasions guilty of an analogous crime. they deny the possibility, or truth of what someone says if it is not 'evidenced by' or demonstrated by the science of today. both science and spirituality have grown and changed over time, no one who knows history could deny that-- and they are both a system of laws and rules by which things are made clearer, or more univerally understood. so why is it that if someone calls science a religion they get jumped all over. i realize the words have alot of connotation, carry alot of extra meanings.. i guess it might be like calling a hatfield a mccoy by mistake, or calling an irish catholic a protestant.. well.. maybe that's teh whole thing. they really are both religions, and people are so used to choosing sides, that only a few are flexible enough to see they are both the same.. while the rest simply fall into line behind the one they've chosen.. much the same as democrats and republicans.. people tell you they think about issues, but usually, even if they disagree with the party about something, it won't stop them from voting along party lines.. for simplicity's sake. it's all very strange. or is it? these thoughts and opinions do not necessarily represent the thoughts and opinions of the author of this post, more accurately they illustrate one particular stream of thought, that if it had not been written here, would have been lost several minutes later, when he plans to eat a sammich.