What is science? Can it coexist with faith? (see Idolatry (False God) of Science)

There is a long-standing, seeming conflict between Faith and Science. "Science" believes that what can't be scientifically proven, doesn't exist. But WAIT! that sentence IS an expression of "belief" which is Faith! So, let's say that again... Scientists have Faith that whatever can't be proven scientifically does not exist. See, they do have Faith and aren't all that different than you and me!

Sometimes, it may seem to the faithful, that science is "beating them up". This article is to help you better understand true science and distinguish it from pseudo-science - junk science and $cience (prostituted "science"). First, we need to understand the scientific method. Correctly employed it should result in truth. Then, we can see if that method has been subverted, resulting in falsehoods. By the way, "science" largely defines "pseudo-science" as belief in non-acceptable narratives (fringe theories and conspiracy theories), wrongly ignoring bad science. Don't fall for that misdirection.

We support discovering truth. It's just that too often we look at "scientific" results and either unquestionably believe in awe or simply disbelieve. There is good reason to question and to disbelieve.


The Scientific Method

The scientific method consists of several required steps:

Observation / Question
Research
Hypothesis
Experiment
Results
Report Conclusion
(Iterate - note this is diagrammed as a circle, not a straight line meaning that each experiment is likely to lead to another question and another experiment)

The experiment step must be:

Observable
Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

There are many ways that this process might give false results. The question could be stated in a way that is prejudiced or leads to a preconceived outcome. Research might be hasty, lazy, slipshod or biased. The hypothesis might be biased. The Experiment itself has several requirements. The results must be observable (if you can't observe, you have no proof it happened), it must be testable (can someone else do it?), repeatable (if someone else tests it, do they get the same or similar results?), and it must be falsifiable (if it can't fail, it is no proof at all). The data must be fairly and accurately analyzed, the report must be fair and accurate, the peer reviews and publications must be fair. Failure at any of these points leads to junk science (at best) or $cience at worst.

Failure at any point is NOT science but pseudo-science resulting in falsehood instead of truth.


Junk Science

Any subversion of the scientific method results in junk science. It might be accomplished by taking short cuts (laziness), ignorance, incompetency, deceit or falsification, with or without mal intent. Regardless of the cause, the result is falsehood masquerading as truth.


$cience

$cience (prostitute science) is accepting money or other valuables to fudge the science for a profit motive. It is never accidental. A prostitute always knows when they accept money for services. We aren't discussing payment for work (that's called a job). We are discussing payment to subvert the scientific process.

This is my way of describing paid, untrue results obtained under the guise of true science. Payment might be money, but it could also be prestige, reputation, advancement, promotion or some other compensation. Anything that yields false results while claiming to be true.

Isn't SCIENCE above all that? That isn't scientific and science IS scientific. Yes? No!


Problems in Science

Science itself admits there are problems. Following is part of an article from Stanford University:

Reproducibility of Scientific Results

"In 2016, a poll conducted by the journal Nature reported that more than half (52%) of scientists surveyed believed science was facing a “replication crisis” (Baker 2016)." [note: this is ONLY discussing items 2 and 3 under the experiment requirements. It doesn't address ANY other issues]

Problems include:

a. "the virtual absence of replication studies in the published literature in many scientific fields (e.g., Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty 2012),

b. "widespread failure to reproduce results of published studies in large systematic replication projects (e.g., OSC 2015; Begley & Ellis 2012),

c. "evidence of publication bias (Fanelli 2010a),

d. "a high prevalence of “questionable research practices”, which inflate the rate of false positives in the literature (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn 2011; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec 2012; Agnoli et al. 2017; Fraser et al. 2018), and

e. "the documented lack of transparency and completeness in the reporting of methods, data and analysis in scientific publication (Bakker & Wicherts 2011; Nuijten et al. 2016)."

[end of article]

See also Replication crisis - Wikipedia

Pharmaceutical studies were able to be replicated only 11%-25% of the time. See Here.

Besides replication problems there are problems of questionable research practices (QRPs) such as reporting bias, publication bias, media bias, selection bias, confirmation bias, conflicts of interest in academic publishing, conflicts of interest to get certain results, pressure to publish or perish, data integrity issues, etc!

With such low replication numbers and so many other potential pitfalls, I would be surprised if 50% of all published studies is valid science. AND, if the study is not part of the current acceptable narrative, it won't get funded or you won't ever hear about it.

These problems, admitted by the scientific community, result in junk science and $cience.

There are ways to protect yourself against junk science and $cience. First by recognizing code words.


Consensus

Be alert to the code word "consensus". Consensus has no place in true science. Just because two people or two million people agree about something, doesn't make it true and doesn't cure bad science. The very fact that the word "consensus" is uttered is a warning that science is probably NOT in agreement. When true science supports a view, consensus is unneeded. The science speaks for itself through replication. Other scientists repeat the experiment and get similar results. It is then considered true until proven otherwise.

Consensus is OPINION or belief or Faith that something is true. It is peer pressure to accept an opinion as truth. True science doesn't need consensus. It can be observed and replicated.


The Science is Settled

Be alert to the code phrase "The science is settled" or "The science is clear". Science is never settled. Man is constantly discovering that last years TRUTHS are this years outdated falsehoods and fantasies. True science always remains willing to change if it can be proven according to scientific methods.

It's easier to claim "consensus" and "settled science" than to do the hard work of proving or disproving through the scientific method and experimentation.

True science can't exist without the right to question it and attempt to prove it wrong.

Truth does not mind being questioned, a lie does not like being challenged.


Theory

Theory is NOT scientific principle. It is only theory, a hypothesis, waiting to be proven or dis-proven. Once a theory is proven it is no longer called a theory. It is called a scientific principle.


Source of Funding

Always question who is paying for the science. "The one who pays the fiddler calls the tune". This issue relates to "prostitute science" - is the scientist selling himself for paid results?


Faith

How does faith fit into this? Faith is the belief something is true or not without having proof.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Scientists are exercising faith when they claim evolution or the big bang.

Christians are exercising faith when they claim creation by the Almighty.

Neither can be proven by scientific methods. Until there is proof, it is accepted on faith. Faith is personal and no one has the right to interfere with what anyone believes or accepts on faith. The response to any objection against faith is "prove it and I will consider". Show me the experiment using the scientific method that proves your position. Show me that it has been replicated. I will read the peer reviewed reports myself and decide.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Unfortunately, there is so much junk science that some people have become cynical or critical of all science. This is especially so where science is opposed to faith based beliefs.

The purpose of this article is to point out the code words that should make us highly critical whenever they are used.

Always question the source of funds. Be very critical when that source is biased or has something to gain (usually money) by the outcome. The majority of all research is funded by someone looking for gain.

The Stanford article above and the website Retraction Watch "...in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions. In October 2019 the Retraction Watch Database reached 20000 entries[13] and as of September 2020 it contains 24064 items.[14]"

We don't need to be intimidated by science ... the chances are it is fraudulent. Of course, there is some legitimate work being done but don't instantly make that assumption.

Following are just a few of many articles that one could find, showing how truly unscientific pseudo-science really is and how pervasive it is. The examples of fraud, dishonesty, laziness, corruption and prostituted $cience are so numerous that they are tedious. Examine a few of these and move on, recognizing that science is no longer in possession of its once lofty and vaulted high ground. Large amounts now survive in the gutters and underground, having transformed into $cience, junk science and pseudo-science.

Academia’s seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud

Fake Peer Reviews

Public Faith Declines as Fakery Grows

Dwindling Faith in Science

Here is a very long article demonstrating a great deal of "junk science" watch for the code word "consensus" (No longer available online).
Wuhan Virus Pandora's Box