But thanks for completely missing my point.
FYI, you have at least five different types of senses just in your skin. Depending how you count them it is 14-20 senses. Maybe you should learn some stuff before embarrassing yourself further.http://science.h.../question242.htm
And lol that you continue to not know that there are more than five senses yet want to lecture others on knowledge.
Also, worth reading the proof of 1+1=2, it shows you that math isn't as simple as you are trying to make out with your reply here.
And yes, it is clear you don't understand post-modernism, I said as much. I also pointed out that it was what your argument was based around. Once again, knowledge I've acquired without having to experience it first hand.
Also, don't try and pretend you didn't make factual errors. I was very clear in pointing out that you were wrong on the number of senses, and that you are lecturing people on knowledge without having any yourself. These are clear mistakes and rather arrogant on your part.
Let's illustrate using a derivative of your own claim that you "i am not arguing 2+2=4 is wrong". How do you know that 2+2=4? How do you know that it won't suddenly equal 5 or 3? You've been told it is the case, haven't you? Do you take that on faith, are you secretly assuming your calculator will one day give you a different answer? When you have two apples and buy two more, do you check every single time to make sure you don't suddenly have 5? This isn't faith based, nor trust, but rather you are tapping into a body of knowledge that has gone before you. You are able to describe 2+2=4 because of learnt knowledge you don't have to experience. Because I bet you didn't write three books of maths proving 1+1=2 like Russell and Whitehead did.
You are making the argument that we can't know stuff without experiencing it first hand, but I'm straight up telling you that you are wrong for thinking that is valid. We build knowledge upon knowledge. We can use old knowledge to create new knowledge. If we can't just learn the old stuff, then we'd have no way of experiencing the new stuff.
I know the post-modernism thing is kinda fun, but you're misapplying it here, and you're failing to understand science and po-mo.
And yes, most of what you have posted is utter drivel. I mean, you just started a post with "five senses" yet want to lecture me on how I'm not understanding stuff.
I will point out that your final paragraph is false. Suggesting that there is "blind faith" in science fails to understand what science is and does. Your example is emblematic of this, since your statement assumes there is only one way to gain knowledge, and everything else is faith that those observations are true. That's utter drivel. That's the wedge arguments that conspiracy mongers use.
And to compare flat earther's belief with the Earth being a oblate spheroid is a failure to understand the difference between evidence and rejection of evidence.
As to a definition of "good morals", well considering the sentence that statement was used in was suggesting that morals are a shifting set of goalposts, I think you have your answer already.
And further to that, religion has often stood in the way of changes to social and moral change. Christianity (as an example to bash) has stood in the way of abolishing slavery, giving women and minorities the vote, etc. So religion can be in direct opposition of good morals because it is often the moral code of a less enlightened time.
Also, you've accused me of being naive and illogical, yet that is what you are doing and what I'm trying to point it out to you. The sooner you understand how flawed your statements are the sooner we can have an actual conversation here.
And no, science isn't another way to gain power. Not in an individualistic sense at least. If that were true then scientists would actually hold some sway in the world, instead of having to (e.g.) argue for 50 years that we need to do something to stop climate change. At best science gives society power. That power can be used or misused, and this is the part you start confounding with science.
Another point, you keep making some very broad and sweeping accusatory generalisations, e.g. humans aren't selfless or altruistic (Salk gave away polio vaccine, pretty selfless and altruistic use of knowledge). That again shows a level of ignorance of the topic. It also shows again the irrational and illogical arguments you are trying to raise.
While science isn't without flaws, you don't even come close to stating a valid argument that addresses one of these flaws. The closest you come is alluding to science being conducted by people (who are inherently flawed) and operating within larger social and economic system.
The fact that you think science is an ideology really just illustrates how little you understand about this topic. Science is a methodology. So before calling someone naive, best make sure you actually have the first clue about the topic at hand.
Your points are not only fallacious, but erroneous. Science and scientists already know there are certain things that are beyond the reach or comprehension. Some things just can't be tested. Some things would take too long to test. Etc.
I'm not sure that referencing Crichton strengthens your point. Citing a known science denier (climate denier, anti-environmentalism) just illustrates further the distorted view of science you have.
Now, morals do not come from religion. Saying that religion, or fear of god or hell, strengthens moral accountability, is nonsense. If that is what it takes you to have morals and moral accountability, then your moral fibre must be worthless. But it also shows that you are presuming scientists aren't moral, or aren't religious, or aren't thinking. None of these are true.
Essentially all of your post amounts to an ignorance informed by those who hate science, or ignorance based upon convenient strawmen you've seen attacked before. I don't mean this as an insult, but as a call to actually engage with science at a more meaningful level. Because at the moment your post is incredibly insulting.
But do tell me more about science going off the rails over the internet. Feel free to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in that action.
And I agree, there is definitely a twisting of religion by people. Russell summed it up nicely: "Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse their cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case."
Also, asking the question of should vs can in the progression of science is definitely an issue. That means applying morality to the search for truth (via science or whatever). There is nothing wrong with that. But arguing that science is misused, therefore it is bad, is a criticism that could be levelled at anything.