Topic: The Science Patheon (Read 543 times)

In order for a scientist to examine some of the aspects of a theory, he almost needs to treat it as though it were real and factual. This is not a problem as long as the scientist keeps the theory in a fantasy world, detaching it from himself when he is done for the day. However, you can see from the way the media promotes theory among the people, and the way that some scientists have embedded theory into their everyday lives, that it is often the other way around. These scientists live their fantasy as though it were real. They even promote it as reality.

As far as using the term "god" to describe certain aspects of nature, why? There are many other terms that can be used. Or, science can invent terms that are new, like they do for all kinds of scientific phenomena already.


Why NOT use the word/term god? For the simple reason that it might offend the real God in such a way that He destroys (or at least greatly limits) scientific advancement, like He did for the Romans and Greeks and other nations that made gods out of their science.

If you want to keep science, don't align it with the word/term "god," and certainly not "God."

Theory in science is a by-model and peer-review proved hypothesis... in common language it is "an hypothesis".  

My proposal is to be used as a way to simplify the communication and isn't quite new, ancient peoples used "Gods" to explain phenomenons, however those Gods were attached to their scientific knowledge, once we get Zeus or Thor as thunder, Hephaestus for fire and craftsmanship, and so on, which groups too wide areas in a single character, if not putting scientific and unscientific under the same roof.

Simplify the communication between the scientific community and the common world is a needed feature, way too many people come up with "that's just a theory" argument exactly due to that communication barrier.

This is an interesting thought. Before we can look for statistics to back it up, we need to know what a serious scientist thinks about, and the attitude he has as he does his scientific investigation.

For example, Stephen Hawking put together the theory for the Big Bang. Among the questions about his attitude, and the attitudes of other scientists, regarding the BB are:
1. Do they consider it a theory?
2. Do they actually believe that this is what happened?
3. Have they missed anything, and do they know it?
4. Could the Beginning have happened another way?
5. What facts do they have that the Beginning could not have happened any other way?
6. Are they really reasonably certain or the age of the universe for a fact?

Even though a scientist can postulate a Beginning for the Universe like the Big Bang, until we have a working time viewer that shows what really happened, the BB is a fictional possibility, only. There can be any number of theories postulated for the way the Beginning happened.

The point is, science is full of theories, but few facts about those theories that make the theories really probable, and fewer still that make them close to fact. Thus, the theories are fictional regarding reality. Yet, often the theories are so employed among scientists and laymen who follow them, that they seem to come into the position of reality in the minds of these people.

What is it called when someone believes something to be fact, when it has not been proven to be fact? Seems to me this approaches the idea of religion, albeit regarding science, often a religion without a god. And, certainly, scientists like Stephen Hawking are very serious about the things they believe.

Until we define what a serious scientist is like, and defined what serious science is, how do we know that religion isn't the basis for science? even though it may not be formally called a religion, or even though it may not be similar to religion that exists except among scientists?

Most but not all who are serious about science show little or no desire for religion.

X-Men won't work. Starting by their leaders, the pseudo-science (Telepathy) is the good guy and the actual science (Magnetism) is the bad one.
Then following up we've:
Wolverine: God of metal chemistry?!
Storm: What in hell is that? Despite the weather is scientific, each of its components is a area on itself.
That one that sucks strength... more pseudo-science...

I'm sorry if I didn't elaborate the idea before, the idea is to have a set of "Public Domain" licensed (this means: anybody could use) "Gods" representing science. These "Gods" are meant to be morality-neutral; "Graviton" will not care if you're a good or a bad guy when you jump of a cliff, neither does "Elektron" if you touch a naked wire.
They must also represent our best scientific knowledge to the time of publishing.
On the anti-heroes we could use this model to represent, and in this case to mock, pseudo-science too, like "Homeopatheticus" or "Vaccinus-Austistus".

Klimatron:  The God Who Punishes Karbon Kriminals

Why don't you go read X-Men comics?

As more and more people comes to side with science, why don't we (re-)create its pantheon for entertainment and representation purposes?

Let me start with two Gods:

Graviton: The God of Gravity
Elektron: The God of Electricity

add yours